Refer to: speak about, denote something.
Ah, I see. “Refer”, not “defer”. Well, since you say you wish to refer back to my post, you go ahead and do that. And let us know your response once you’ve done that.
In my post #280, I had clearly shown you, via evidence clearly demonstrated, how
(a) You were mistaken in your initial interpretation of Huxley’s Agnosticism.
(b) You were mistaken in thinking that my Huxley quotes -- which you had accepted did alter the sense of your initial interpretation – do not “substantially” alter that sense, the sense of (your initial interpretation of) the sense of Huxley’s agnosticism. I did this by clearly referring back to your own earlier comments, and Huxley’s quotes, and comparing and contrasting the senses conveyed by each, and showing how different were your views (on Huxley’s Agnosticism) from the views expressed on this by Huxley himself.
Referring back to that particular post, my post #280 -- it's just one single post after all, albeit a longish post -- ought not be a very cumbersome task. At your leisure and comfort, then, whenever you’re able, after you’ve “referred” my post, do let us know if you are able to acknowledge your error, or if you are able, instead, to defend your earlier position and to come out with some different take on the issue.
I only sustain Huxley’s definition of agnosticism quoted here:
Agnosticism (from Greek a-, ‘not’, and gnastos, ‘known’), term invented by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 to denote the philosophical and religious attitude of those who claim that metaphysical ideas can be neither proved nor disproved. Huxley wrote, “I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it.” (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy).
And I had shown you, by quoting Huxley himself, in what terms he understood his new term, Agnosticism. You did agree, subsequently, that my qualification (in the form of those quotes) does add further nuance to that definition of Huxley’s Agnosticism. The only disagreement we still had, after your agreeing to this, is whether this further nuance “substantially altered” (your interpretation of) Huxley’s Agnosticism, the position represented by a bald statement of that definition. You felt it did not “substantially alter” it (albeit alter it did, if only ‘insubstantially) ; while I had clearly shown, with evidence, in my post #280, how it very substantially did alter that meaning.
Are we in agreement about this? If not, you’ll have to clearly explain why not -- given my very clear and very clearly documented explanation in my post #280.
In epistemology no intentions. The subject is the logical subject, not a personal one. I use “claim” as synonym of “affirm”. The subject of the sentence is the subject of the claim.
In logics, epistemology and dialectics any proposition needs confirmation, axioms excepted. Irrationalism puts its beliefs as axioms.
You understood my broader point, did you not?
You say that the Agnostic “claims” that he will not have faith in that which is not backed by evidence. A claim needs to be backed up ; and so you go on to build up a hypothetical around how the Agnostic might back up that claim. (And you espy a non-existent paradox in so doing.)
I’m saying that the Agnostic’s declaration that he will not have faith in that which is not backed by evidence is not a claim per se. It is simply a declaration of intent. As such, there is no question of backing it up, with evidence or otherwise, unlike a “claim”.
You know : like if I say “I will not steal”, that declaration of intent needs no ‘backing up’. (You may question my wisdom in making that declaration, but that is very different from requiring me to "back up" my declaration the way one backs up a claim.) And what is more, if I now coin a clumsy-sounding word, 'a-stealist', to denote those who, like me, make this particular declaration of intent, then that does not in any way alter the fact that my declaration of intent needs no backing up. Similarly, a declaration of intent that one will not believe stuff for which there is no evidence, needs no backing up, just because a word ‘agnostic’ was coined to describe that declaration of intent.
And that negates your exposition of the “agnostic’s paradox”, in the form that you have presented it, nips it right in the bud as it were. Because there can be no “Why?” asked of a declaration of intent : that declaration simply stands on its feet. (Albeit you may question the wisdom of such declaration, absolutely : but that is a separate matter.)
You appreciate this, right?
This is the problem: you are too stuck to Huxley. There are other kinds of agnostics. Relativists, for example.
Agnosticism (from Greek a-, ‘not’, and gnastos, ‘known’), the philosophical and religious attitude of those who claim that metaphysical ideas can be neither proved nor disproved. Huxley wrote, “I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it.” (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy).
No hint of scientism in this definition.
On the contrary : It is you who started out quoting Huxley’s definition, and claiming primacy for his definition of that word by weight of his “semantic authority” and even his “copyright”. It was you who were “too stuck on” to Huxley’s Agnosticism : and it was I who insisited that the word Agnosticism had at least as many as
four separate dictionary-backed de facto usages and meanings, not just that one meaning.
In addition, I had clearly showed, by referring to some quotes from Huxley, how that particular definition of Huxley’s requires to be put in context of his further thoughts and ideas about this term that he had coined. And what is more, you yourself had agreed that the quotes I presented did alter Huxley’s Agnosticism, but opined that this alteration was not “substantial”. Whereupon, in my post #280, I clearly showed you, with evidence, how the alteration (to your interpretation of Huxley’s meaning) was indeed substantial.
While there is "no hint" of what you refer to as "scientism" in your definition, nevertheless that is exactly what I have shown Huxley to have meant by that term, via that quote of his that I presented earlier on. In so far as Huxley's meaning of Agnosticism is concerned, surely you will agree that it is Huxely himself who must have the last word on what it is he meant, wouldn't you agree?
I introduced fideism because some fideists like to consider themselves “agnostics”. According the definition of agnosticism they neither prove nor disprove, they only believe. Of course this is —or seems to me— different to Huxley’s agnosticism because he defend his agnosticism in terms of scientism. The difference is that the fideist don’t prove but affirms, and Huxley cannot affirm if there is not a proof.
You don’t understand the problem because you introduce the scientism in the definition of “agnosticism”. This is confusing, because there are relativists agnostics that are not scientists. (By the way: If you don’t like “scientism” use “positivism”: a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified).
Now you say correctly “Huxley’s Agnostic”. This is a kind of agnosticism. You call it as you want. The rest of your comment depend of your confusing use of the word “agnosticism”.
With respect, I repeat that this remains a non sequitur. To use what appears to me a pertinent analogy : There are creationists who consider themselves scientists, and who imagine that their creationist ideas are fully backed by “science” ; and yet, a criticism of creationism cannot in any way or form be considered to be a criticism of science itself, can it? Similarly, a discussion of fideism remains just that, a discussion of fideism : it is not, and cannot be considered to be, a critique or a discussion of agnositicism.
And I’m not “(introducing) the scientism in the definition of ‘agnosticism’. ” I’m merely showing you that Huxley’s Agnostic is the exact same as what you yourself refer to as “scientist”, so that when we speak of Huxley’s Agnosticism, there is no need to separately qualify that Agnosticism with a reference to the “scientist”.
Yes, I take your point that in speaking of “agnostic fideists” you are using a separate definition of Agnosticism, separate from Huxley’s Agnosticism. You’re using the meaning directly suggested by philology and word roots. Fair enough, that also is a valid definition, and used in this sense, a fideist can indeed be thought of as an “agnostic theist”.
But again, all of that is not really relevant at all to this discussion : your particular objection to fideism, and your attempted disproof of fideism -- regardless of the actual merit of that objection and that attempted disproof -- remains nothing more or less than an objection to and an attempted disproof of fideism itself. It does not, in any way or shape or form, speak to Agnosticism at all. Not even the watered-down sense of Agnosticism that you yourself “introduce” here.
Incidentally : Thank you for supplying that alternative word, Positivism, to explain what you meant to convey by Scientism. Scientism, as I know the word, carries a whole different meaning, and the way you had used this word had been confusing. But okay, now that you have clearly defined yourself, we may use either Scientism or Positivism, whichever you prefer, at least for the space of our further discussion, without any further confusion.
The use of a word is not true or false, it is correct or useful. I won't discuss this with you unless you insist.
The vocabulary I added is how I use those terms. I thought it was helpful for you to know. (...) You can talk about hard and soft atheism if you like. I can understand that.
I had inferred that you were meaning to convey that the definition of Atheism you gave there was the one true meaning for that word. In saying “Not true”, that is what objecting to : I was saying that it is “not true” that the word Atheism carries
only that meaning.
I understand you to say now that you were only discussing one particular meaning of that word (from amongst many possible meanings). And I have absolutely no issues with that.
It is not the atheist that misunderstands the burden of the proof, it is you.
The burden of proof lies on the one who affirms the existence of something. Not the one that “denies” or “affirms that X is not”. You cannot prove that pink dragons doesn’t exist. The burden of proof lies on the one who affirm that pink dragons exist. It he fails you are right in saying that pink dragons doesn’t exist.
The rest of your comment lies on this essential misunderstanding.
With respect, David Mo, you are wholly fully and entirely mistaken when you say this. With no offense or disrespect intended, I have to say plainly : I am afraid your understanding of the burden of proof, so far as I can discern from what you say above, is flawed through and through.
Please allow me to show you clearly and unambiguously, right way, right now, via these analogies, why I say your understanding of the burden of proof is flawed.
If you claim that black holes exist, then you will be called upon to give evidence for it. (Evidence by way of direct observation, and if not that, then at least reasoning backed by math to show that it is at least possible and perhaps probable.) But equally, if you were to stand up and declare that there are no black holes, declare that black holes do not exist : even then, you will be required to back your declaration up with evidence and/or reasoning (and math). That is, if you claim that no black holes exist, then the burden of proof, the burden of evidence, for backing up that declaration will clearly and unambiguously rest on you. In other words, the default position is not that black holes do not exist, but that you know nothing about them. (Although yes, if out of the blue someone descends on you and asks you to believe that there are these things called black holes out there, then, in the absence of satisfactory evidence, you are perfectly justified in rejecting their claim. You can be the equivalent of a soft atheist, and reject black holes firmly if no satisfactory evidence is proffered ; but you cannot be the equivalent of a hard atheist, and yourself claim that there are no black holes out there.)
To use another analogy : If you claim that pocket universes exist, then you will be required to show evidence (or at least, to show your reasoning and your math to back up your claim that such may be possible/probable). On the other hand, if you declare that there are no pocket universes at all, then absolutely, you will be required to show evidence for your declaration, by way of either direct observation (or, lacking that, at least by way of reasoning and math to show that what you are saying carries weight).
You can test this right now by starting fresh threads declaring that “Black holes do not exist”, or that “Pocket universes do not exist”. I will wager that within the first page itself in those threads, you will be met with a whole host of polite requests (as well as a few less polite and more peremptory demands) that you back up what you’re claiming. [Unless you happen to start these threads in Community, in which case your OP will probably be met with off-color and un-funny jokes!
]
Why on earth would the same standards not apply to your pink dragons? Or to Gods? Why on earth this special pleading for pink dragons and Gods?
