• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

Ichneumonwasp said:
Piggy,

Could we collapse that whole sequence of posts into one? Look here first, please.


I think I see two issues with your argument. One is the claim that no one ever viewed god(s) as mere creators with no involvement in the universe. I strongly disagree with that statement since there is a clear history of viewing god as completely other that dates back to Plato at least. Look at the debates in the middle ages over defining god, at the Neo-Platonist conceptions of god, at the Enlightenment conceptions, etc. It is simply not true that folks never viewed god(s) as abstract 'other' that began and maintains the universe. It is simply not the case that everyone views god(s) as answering prayers. I have met several people, mostly Jews, who think of god in just such abstract terms and these are practicing Jews who still perform Shabbat services, go to Temple, etc.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, Plato, as well as certain ancients in China, India, Japan.... There's a long history of it.

On the other hand, there's the god people pray to for deliverance.

No one ever said an absentee god saved a kid from a car crash.

And when you go back far enough in any culture, you find that all the gods do things in this world.

So you have this continuum from the gods that people petition to do things for them and the deistic "god" (I have to use the QMs b/c this is an undefined god) which comes later as the more primitive gods are recognized as absurd.

The movement along that continuum of attenuation is from false to undefined (which is to say, nonsensical).

Unless you intend to propose one that's neither.

So far we've got a grad student in a universe where beings don't die. (I know, you never proposed that; nevertheless, it's what you have described.)

If we find out that this thing is responsible for the universe, no one's going to shout "The believers were right!", least of all the believers themselves.


Ichneumonwasp said:
Second, I do not agree that we understand the laws of physics at a fundamental level. We describe how they function quite nicely, and granted there are holes to fill in, but we do not understand them at their most fundamental level. I don't know a physicist who would claim that we really have a fix on what it all means; we clearly do not have a theory of everything. I think the easiest way to explain this aspect of the issue is to ask two simple questions: (1) what is gravity? and (2) what is energy? Sure, we can describe what gravity does, model it with special relativity, discuss the curvature of space-time. But what is it? It's the curvature of space-time? How does that work? Special relativity is a model for understanding how it works, for predicting how gravity affects stuff. It doesn't really tell us what it *is*. The same is true for energy. We define energy in terms of what it does because that is what science and our understanding of the world is all about -- understanding how things work.
Click to expand...

We look out and observe the world. We make instruments to magnify things for us, or change them into things we can see or hear.

It sure is a strange world out there. Or so it seems whenever we hit something new. Eventually, though, we come to terms with it as best we can. Although I suppose we will have to hit our limits someday.

And in all that exploration what we've seen is the theists have been wrong about everything... or at least about everything that actually tested what they were saying... right down the line.

And none of the potential answers to the current questions about our world have anything to do with notions of god.

But you want to tell me that the state of the science of physics is supposed to provide me some reason not to understand that gods are all myths?

I beg to differ.

Ichneumonwasp said:
None of that tells us what things actually are, however. We do not know if what creates what we see as gravity and energy actually is a single fundamental stuff that we can label 'matter' even though that word is covered in other connotations and which accounts for vibrating strings of energy and space-time somehow; or a Universal Mind whose thoughts produce what we see as the same effects; or a god whose actions in some other form produce what we view as the 'the laws of physics'.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can't go that far.

Thoughts are not airy nothings. They are the activity of a brain. If you want to propose that this universe is a brain, well, it sure doesn't look like one... maybe you have a mechanism to propose? If not, then perhaps I can also propose that it's a 1957 Ford Fairlane.

If you do propose that it's a brain of some sort, then obviously it can't be conscious of all of its own activity, so what is it conscious of?

If it's conscious of us, why don't we notice any mechanism?

If you want to propose a mind without a brain, how does that work? If you don't know how that works, then let me propose that the universe was created by a crystal that has no atoms in it.

Or maybe by "mind" you mean something different from what the word actually means, something that no one has ever imagined it could mean. In that case, the universe might also have been caused by Gary Coleman.

You may have noticed there's a pattern here.

All of the retreats go to nonsense, off to a Wonderland where the rules can produce any absurd idea you care to rattle off.

The condition becomes "as long as you accept that black can mean white...."

Just like I don't need to travel the entire universe, I don't need to know "what it is" in order to understand that god theory has failed. It persists, yes, no doubt about that, both the contrary-to-fact flavor and the de-defined flavor. But one is false, and the other isn't even a claim, so my only way to believe it is to stop being rational, and there be dragons.

Ichneumonwasp said:
All that we can see is this interaction in the universe, this game that we call the laws of physics. It's precise nature will forever remain unknown to us.

This is not a trivial issue for the religious minded person because many of them express their belief about god(s) in terms of wonder at existence itself. If you listen to the non-mindless bigots they can speak somewhat intelligently about their beliefs regarding existence itself. These people are real. They really, truly think of god in this way -- as the answer to existence itself. And they worship and revere this god.
Click to expand...

You can't worship a thing you never heard of.

This is the error I've been trying to point out to you.

Now, the human brain is really good at accepting inconsistencies. Many Xians, for instance, believe absolutely that there is one God, and that Jesus is God and God the Father is God, and that Jesus is not God the Father, and that Jesus was a man. This is fine.

Go to the political threads and you'll see contradictions successfully ignored right and left, and read Drew Westen's "The Political Brain" and you'll find studies demonstrating how our brains pull off this trick.

So it's not surprising that people would worship and revere a god which, upon investigation, they also insist is beyond our understanding and undetectable by science. But their belief doesn't remove the contradiction.

If they are able to worship it, and it's not nothing, then it is something and it does something in our world, otherwise they could not know it, could never have guessed at it, could have no experience of it.

You can't simply cite these folks' beliefs and ignore that.

In fact, their thoughts and actions are perfectly explainable by our scientific understanding of the brain, within a matrix of broader understanding about the world that does not include gods and which has supplanted the earlier mythological understanding of the world which we now know to be false.

Ichneumonwasp said:
Now, you and I don't feel the need to make that jump. I see no reason to propose what I see as an extraneous entity, especially if that entity implies two independent substances that produce an insoluble interaction problem. I reject the extra god on those grounds, not on the grounds that I can disprove it because I can't. No one can. As to what is labelled idealism vs materialism I can only say, what possible difference could it make? We're still stuck in a situation in which all we can do is model what we see in this universe.
Click to expand...

But see, we don't even have to worry about this, because there is no "extraneous entity" being proposed.

As it turns out over and over, what's being proposed is a string of letters that has nothing to serve as a label for. So we can save ourselves the worry.

It is impossible to find a thing which has no definition. Which means the thing will never be found, because it can never be found.

As soon as you clarify the definition so that you do get to something that really does distinguish a god from a not-god, the game goes to not-god. That's where it stands.

Ichneumonwasp said:
I also disagree with your story of the supernatural being a later addition when things were explained naturally. My take is that religions have always included the idea of a world behind this world, though it is arguable that the concept of different natural processes containing spiritual energies is based in a different type of natural conception. Certainly by the time we hit animistic ideas of souls there seems to be a world behind the world at play. I agree completely with your psychological analysis of why this occurs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I probably misspoke there.

What I meant was that we've seen a regular progression, at different times in different cultures, of gods simply being part of the world-as-is (even if there's some sort of crossover point between their territory and ours) to being removed to unknowable spaces.
 
Piggy said:
What I meant was that we've seen a regular progression, at different times in different cultures, of gods simply being part of the world-as-is (even if there's some sort of crossover point between their territory and ours) to being removed to unknowable spaces.
Click to expand...


Sorry to interrupt but if you read Psychology and Alchemy you will see why your observation is irrelevant.
 
dafydd said:
Proof please. Philosophy is just a sideline. Good for exercising your jaw muscles.
Click to expand...


…yes of course…

The role of philosophy in our legal, political, social, moral, and ethical conditions (not to mention every single concept you are using) is, apparently, insignificant.

As for science, it is worth noting that it is human beings who do science, not science that does human beings.

A few examples of how fundamental philosophy is to science:

What does the word falsifiable mean, and how do we know it means anything at all, and how do we know it is important, and how is it used, and how do we know how not to use it. How about Occam’s Razor (I’m sure every skeptic learns the Razor before they’re even toilet trained). Pure philosophy. To suggest that philosophy is merely a sideline is nothing but pure laziness. You may quite reasonably regard that as an insult.



“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.”

Daniel Dennett


tsig said:
Show it don't just say it.


This unbelievable sense of superiority while having less use than a water bucket with a hole in it is why many dislike philosophy and philosophers.
Click to expand...


Show what??? It is freakin amazing to me that you guys, or girls, or what the freak ever you are, have been here for a collective thirty odd thousand posts, doubtless encountering endless examples of philosophy in action in every way shape and form…and yet you seem to have learned nothing. Maybe if the philosophers sound superior it is because they actually are. Stupidity, in case you haven’t noticed, is not a virtue. It is a simple fact that this world has very big ideas in it. Very very very very big. I’ve pointed out a few of them (which have been summarily rejected without so much as a citation…what else is new). The ability to understand these big ideas requires commensurate abilities.


If you do not possess these abilities…don’t blame those who do.


ETA: I am not a philosopher nor do I have any formal philosophical training. I simply am not so quick to dismiss those who do.
 
annnnoid said:
…yes of course…

The role of philosophy in our legal, political, social, moral, and ethical conditions (not to mention every single concept you are using) is, apparently, insignificant.

As for science, it is worth noting that it is human beings who do science, not science that does human beings.

A few examples of how fundamental philosophy is to science:

What does the word falsifiable mean, and how do we know it means anything at all, and how do we know it is important, and how is it used, and how do we know how not to use it. How about Occam’s Razor (I’m sure every skeptic learns the Razor before they’re even toilet trained). Pure philosophy. To suggest that philosophy is merely a sideline is nothing but pure laziness. You may quite reasonably regard that as an insult.



“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.”

Daniel Dennett





Show what??? It is freakin amazing to me that you guys, or girls, or what the freak ever you are, have been here for a collective thirty odd thousand posts, doubtless encountering endless examples of philosophy in action in every way shape and form…and yet you seem to have learned nothing. Maybe if the philosophers sound superior it is because they actually are. Stupidity, in case you haven’t noticed, is not a virtue. It is a simple fact that this world has very big ideas in it. Very very very very big. I’ve pointed out a few of them (which have been summarily rejected without so much as a citation…what else is new). The ability to understand these big ideas requires commensurate abilities.


If you do not possess these abilities…don’t blame those who do.


ETA: I am not a philosopher nor do I have any formal philosophical training. I simply am not so quick to dismiss those who do.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood me. I asked for proof, not more bare assertions. Was Faraday philosophizing when he made the first electric motor? Science arose because of Man interacting with the world on a practical level, not because of philosophers sitting on their backsides while exercising their jaws.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
It's a waste of time is what the issue is. If you want to argue something, do so. If you won't believe what you're saying is true, then why argue it ?
Click to expand...
Maybe because he's generally doing a better job at arguing the believer's position better than they themselves are?
 
Since when does playing devil's advocate and admitting it openly necessarily constitute troll behavior?

What is the problem with "for the sake of the argument"? That's precisely why we are here!

"Hey, I don't want to argue with someone who is not defending what he believes, even if he clarifies that. It makes it more difficult to attack him personally."
 
annnnoid said:
…yes of course…

The role of philosophy in our legal, political, social, moral, and ethical conditions (not to mention every single concept you are using) is, apparently, insignificant.

As for science, it is worth noting that it is human beings who do science, not science that does human beings.

A few examples of how fundamental philosophy is to science:

What does the word falsifiable mean, and how do we know it means anything at all, and how do we know it is important, and how is it used, and how do we know how not to use it. How about Occam’s Razor (I’m sure every skeptic learns the Razor before they’re even toilet trained). Pure philosophy. To suggest that philosophy is merely a sideline is nothing but pure laziness. You may quite reasonably regard that as an insult.



“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.”

Daniel Dennett





Show what??? It is freakin amazing to me that you guys, or girls, or what the freak ever you are, have been here for a collective thirty odd thousand posts, doubtless encountering endless examples of philosophy in action in every way shape and form…and yet you seem to have learned nothing. Maybe if the philosophers sound superior it is because they actually are. Stupidity, in case you haven’t noticed, is not a virtue. It is a simple fact that this world has very big ideas in it. Very very very very big. I’ve pointed out a few of them (which have been summarily rejected without so much as a citation…what else is new). The ability to understand these big ideas requires commensurate abilities.


If you do not possess these abilities…don’t blame those who do.


ETA: I am not a philosopher nor do I have any formal philosophical training. I simply am not so quick to dismiss those who do.
Click to expand...


Your very very very very very very big idea isn't my very very very very very very big idea.

If these ideas are so big I'm really surprised you haven't undertaken to study them yourself.
 
dafydd said:
You misunderstood me. I asked for proof, not more bare assertions. Was Faraday philosophizing when he made the first electric motor? Science arose because of Man interacting with the world on a practical level, not because of philosophers sitting on their backsides while exercising their jaws.
Click to expand...

I'll give the philos this... they asked the right questions to make science possible.

But you do wonder why so many folks kept at it afterwards.
 
Piggy said:
I'll give the philos this... they asked the right questions to make science possible.

But you do wonder why so many folks kept at it afterwards.
Click to expand...

I suppose that the alchemists considered themselves to be philosophers.
 
dafydd said:
Which philosopher asked the right questions that set Galileo off?
Click to expand...

Well, you could start with Erasmus, I guess, but it's bound to go backward from no matter where you start.
 
Let me put it this way to the dead-enders....

If we know anything at all, we know there is no god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom