To Believe or Not to Believe - Is that the question?

[marplots]

After reading this thread, I don't know what I believe.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

One of the positions in play in this thread is that agnosticism is a subset of atheism. So it follows that there are no agnostic theists, but that is not true.

So for this thread and the other thread the claim, that an agnostic is an atheist in denial, is not true.

 

[Navigator]

I don't think so. The null position is to refuse to believe any proposition without sufficient evidence. One who does not know has insufficient evidence to form a conclusion. Therefore, that person should not believe.

In any case, this entire line of thinking appears to be based on the very loose convergence and divergence of the words "know" and "believe." It's a linguistic trick. There is no philosophy behind it. We might as well argue whether Barack Obama is black.

My argument is that it is a linguistic trick to allow oneself the luxury of using these two words interchangeably in the first place. It's a lot like moving the goalposts as it suits depending on which way the ball is being kicked, so a goal can never be scored.

I first picked up on this when debating with a Christian about evolution. In the course of the interaction he claimed he knew 'God had not created through evolution' (I had asked him if he ever considered that his idea of god might have created the universe through the process of evolution) I asked him how he knew, and he said that he believed that god didn't create through the process of evolution.

I tried to explain to him that knowing was different from believing and he assured me that it was philosophically acceptable to use the two different words interchangeably.

That was the death kneel of the argument and it didn't matter then how I approached in any direction of argument because he had the right to use the great argument disintegration weapon of being able to know and believe at the same time and that was that.

You can't argue with such a position. It wins every time.

 

[Pup]

Well, my analogy of unicorns and mermaids got tossed out by Navigator above because he couldn't see the relevance, but I think it's an excellent example of how "know" and "believe" have a variety of meanings in the English language that shade into one another.

Can we actually know there are no mermaids, by the classical definition of half human, half fish? Most everyone would say yes, because there's no social pressure to believe in them. so that removes all the psychological burden of talking about a god. But what are we basing that knowledge on? It's really a belief that our understanding of anatomy, evidence of marine animals, etc. are correct--a belief so strong that it fades into knowledge.

Yet if peer pressure for a belief in mermaids grew so powerful that it permeated all of society, more people would begin to doubt that anatomy, evidence of marine animals, etc., were sufficient. They would believe in mermaids, and might claim that belief slid into knowledge: "I just know they exist." Or they might put so much weight on other evidence--reported sightings, pariedola-filled blurry photos--that they would claim to know, with evidence.

One can see such things with people who have what most consider crackpot ideas: They believe/know bigfoot exists.

Now move such beliefs into the mainstream, where one is often ostracized if you don't believe. There will be more "crackpots" who claim to know based on a gut feeling or on evidence that wouldn't convince others, and they'll no longer be crackpots but a respected powerful majority. That's belief/knowledge in god(s). It would seem as crackpottish as belief/knowledge of bigfoot, if it weren't so common among powerful and socially influential people as to permeate society.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But some atheists do have beliefs, so therefore - at least according to them, belief does have something to do with Atheism.

I believe the airplanes flying into Lambert Field won't suddenly fall out of the sky, almost always. I believe the lights will come on when I flip a switch, almost always. I believe I can communicate easily with a friend in an opal mine in Australia, almost always.

My beliefs have nothing to do with any god or gods.

 

[Navigator]

One of the positions in play in this thread is that agnosticism is a subset of atheism. So it follows that there are no agnostic theists, but that is not true.

That is slightly skewed.

The position is more one of agnosticism being identified solely as a subset of atheism because of how the identifying question is framed. Bringing theists into the argument - as in "there are those who self identify as agnostic theists" is not the focus of the thread so much as an example of how the framed question forces attention upon theists and atheists, as if somehow those who self identify as one or the other are all that matter, and the only identifiers which are true. You bringing theists into the argument helps to show that.

So for this thread and the other thread the claim, that an agnostic is an atheist in denial, is not true.

The other thread specifically claims that an agnostic is an atheist in denial. This thread came about because I disagree with that statement being true, and also with the reasoning behind it, which I have identified as having a lot to do with the framing of the determining question.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That is slightly skewed.

The position is more one of agnosticism being identified solely as a subset of atheism because of how the identifying question is framed. Bringing theists into the argument - as in "there are those who self identify as agnostic theists" is not the focus of the thread so much as an example of how the framed question forces attention upon theists and atheists, as if somehow those who self identify as one or the other are all that matter, and the only identifiers which are true. You bringing theists into the argument helps to show that.



The other thread specifically claims that an agnostic is an atheist in denial. This thread came about because I disagree with that statement being true, and also with the reasoning behind it, which I have identified as having a lot to do with the framing of the determining question.

Okay

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Incorrect - I'm an agnostic-atheist not merely an agnostic. Agnostic is applied to my atheism purely as a subset. Firstly and predominately I'm an atheist (just like you if you're not a theist). Agnostic isn't a middle position that lies between theist and atheist. Many theists would also answer "No". They would be agnostic-theists (see how that works?).

The only thing I can see is your confusion (that's putting it nicely).

I will assume that's game over.

ETA –My more complete answer would have been – “No, not absolutely. But I do as near as damn that it doesn't really matter”.

So being an agnostic is a subset to both being a theist or an atheist. How do you know that it is so, since that is also so for being a gnostic. Can you explain that?
In other words how can a agnostic be a subset of an atheist, if an atheist also can be a gnostic? Can you explain that?

 

[bruto]

Q: "Do you know god(s) exist?"

Your A: "No"

Therefore you are an agnostic.

I too am an agnostic - My answer is the same. I don't know that god(s) exist.

Do you see the point of the OP? It is all about the framework of the question being asked as to what the answer can be and thus what others can label you as being based on the answer you give.

Your problem here is the same old same old problem as always, though. The idea that such a thing as a god might exist, and the idea that there even is some idea that can be called a god, is a fabrication of faith.

As soon as any word or idea is presented by anyone, you must, by your definition, become an agnostic to that idea, no matter how silly it is, if you cannot definitively disprove it. You must be an agnostic to fairies, ghosts, volcano gods and flying monkeys too.

If it makes you comfortable, you can call anyone you want an agnostic, but all you're really doing is eliminating the word "atheist" from your working vocabulary. A person who does not believe that any gods do or can exist, and lives life with the presumption that they do not, may in some sophistical way be an agnostic, but aside from preening your philosophical feathers, you have not done anything.

 

[Navigator]

I believe the airplanes flying into Lambert Field won't suddenly fall out of the sky, almost always. I believe the lights will come on when I flip a switch, almost always. I believe I can communicate easily with a friend in an opal mine in Australia, almost always.

My beliefs have nothing to do with any god or gods.

This is a good example of the improper, unnecessary use of the word belief/believe.

Try this.

I know the likelihood of airplanes flying into Lambert Field suddenly falling out of the sky, is minimal. I know the lights will come on when I flip a switch, almost always. I know I can communicate easily with a friend in an opal mine in Australia, almost always.

Such as is the actual case, there is no need for belief to be expressed at all. Belief is surplus to requirement.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Your problem here is the same old same old problem as always, though. The idea that such a thing as a god might exist, and the idea that there even is some idea that can be called a god, is a fabrication of faith.

As soon as any word or idea is presented by anyone, you must, by your definition, become an agnostic to that idea, no matter how silly it is, if you cannot definitively disprove it. You must be an agnostic to fairies, ghosts, volcano gods and flying monkeys too.
If it makes you comfortable, you can call anyone you want an agnostic, but all you're really doing is eliminating the word "atheist" from your working vocabulary. A person who does not believe that any gods do or can exist, and lives life with the presumption that they do not, may in some sophistical way be an agnostic, but aside from preening your philosophical feathers, you have not done anything.

No!
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.
Some of us are agnostic because we hold that any version of a positive or negative claim about what any ultimate reality is, is unknown and probably unknowable. God is a subset of the problem of what ultimate reality is.
I.e. flying monkeys are a part of the knowable universe, but any version of ultimate reality is unknown. Now in practice for within the knowable universe gods are a human creation and all believers always resort to 1st person beliefs.
But there is in practice no evidence possible for any ultimate reality. I am not a solipsist BTW, but what the universe really is I don't know.

With regards

 

[Navigator]

Your problem here is the same old same old problem as always, though. The idea that such a thing as a god might exist, and the idea that there even is some idea that can be called a god, is a fabrication of faith.

That is not a problem of mine.

As soon as any word or idea is presented by anyone, you must, by your definition, become an agnostic to that idea, no matter how silly it is, if you cannot definitively disprove it. You must be an agnostic to fairies, ghosts, volcano gods and flying monkeys too.

That is an argument from a specific position. The position of someone who self identifies as being a 'strong atheist'.

It is also not the focus of either question. It is simply an argument that says, "If you are going to talk about god(s) why not talk about everything which has similar properties as god(s)" and this is typically an argument which holds validity with someone who is a strong atheist, but is not in itself valid argument just because it appears to be valid by some atheists, especially strong atheists who find no problem in having the necessary belief systems associated with strong atheism.

If it makes you comfortable, you can call anyone you want an agnostic, but all you're really doing is eliminating the word "atheist" from your working vocabulary.

What makes me comfortable is being true and avoiding the traps of belief systems.
The thread topic is not about eliminating the word "atheist" from my working vocabulary. It is about understanding how questions are framed to suit certain particular positions while eliminating or marginalizing or forcing inappropriate identification one other positions.

A person who does not believe that any gods do or can exist, and lives life with the presumption that they do not, may in some sophistical way be an agnostic, but aside from preening your philosophical feathers, you have not done anything.

This is typically the way strong atheists express opinion. You are misrepresenting the intent of the thread topic by your use of language to express contempt and derision.

It is not true of all atheists, but being strongly opinionated and able to express these negatively under the title 'Atheist' can and does confuse people who might think that all atheists express in this manner, which is untrue.

If I were to believe your expression, and bow to its negativity I would be more inclined to think that by speaking out I have 'done nothing' and even possibly shut up and do nothing.

But I don't believe you.

I don't believe your expression or the way you have expressed here is valid.

 

[bruto]

No!
Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.
Some of us are agnostic because we hold that any version of a positive or negative claim about what any ultimate reality is, is unknown and probably unknowable. God is a subset of the problem of what ultimate reality is.
I.e. flying monkeys are a part of the knowable universe, but any version of ultimate reality is unknown. Now in practice for within the knowable universe gods are a human creation and all believers always resort to 1st person beliefs.
But there is in practice no evidence possible for any ultimate reality. I am not a solipsist BTW, but what the universe really is I don't know.

With regards

I agree up to a point, in that we cannot know ultimate reality. My point is that without any evidence of a god, it's only by common sense and convention that we name anything a god or determine whether we put it in one category or another.

I think there is a fundamental difference, even if the term "agnostic" can be applied in both cases, between someone who says "I don't know what's behind the universe, but I think there must be something more" and one who says "I don't know what's behind the universe, but I think my understanding is incomplete."

 

[tsig]

This is a good example of the improper, unnecessary use of the word belief/believe.

Try this.

I know the likelihood of airplanes flying into Lambert Field suddenly falling out of the sky, is minimal. I know the lights will come on when I flip a switch, almost always. I know I can communicate easily with a friend in an opal mine in Australia, almost always.

Such as is the actual case, there is no need for belief to be expressed at all. Belief is surplus to requirement.

Believe, think, know can all be used as equivalents depending on context. By use of the one old trick of conflating meanings these discussions can be drug on forever.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

I think there is a fundamental difference, even if the term "agnostic" can be applied in both cases, between someone who says "I don't know what's behind the universe, but I think there must be something more" and one who says "I don't know what's behind the universe, but I think my understanding is incomplete."

Now bruto, I will treat you like a skeptic in the most positive sense possible and ask you to apply skepticism, critical thinking and all your knowledge of evidence and consider how and why you used think.

With regards and the most sincere wishes of a long and happy life for your time remaining.

 

[Loss Leader]

Now bruto, I will treat you like a skeptic in the most positive sense possible and ask you to apply skepticism, critical thinking and all your knowledge of evidence and consider how and why you used think.

What if he just mails you a dictionary?

 

[Navigator]

Well, my analogy of unicorns and mermaids got tossed out by Navigator above because he couldn't see the relevance, but I think it's an excellent example of how "know" and "believe" have a variety of meanings in the English language that shade into one another.

Can we actually know there are no mermaids, by the classical definition of half human, half fish? Most everyone would say yes, because there's no social pressure to believe in them. so that removes all the psychological burden of talking about a god. But what are we basing that knowledge on? It's really a belief that our understanding of anatomy, evidence of marine animals, etc. are correct--a belief so strong that it fades into knowledge.

Yet if peer pressure for a belief in mermaids grew so powerful that it permeated all of society, more people would begin to doubt that anatomy, evidence of marine animals, etc., were sufficient. They would believe in mermaids, and might claim that belief slid into knowledge: "I just know they exist." Or they might put so much weight on other evidence--reported sightings, pariedola-filled blurry photos--that they would claim to know, with evidence.

One can see such things with people who have what most consider crackpot ideas: They believe/know bigfoot exists.

Now move such beliefs into the mainstream, where one is often ostracized if you don't believe. There will be more "crackpots" who claim to know based on a gut feeling or on evidence that wouldn't convince others, and they'll no longer be crackpots but a respected powerful majority. That's belief/knowledge in god(s). It would seem as crackpottish as belief/knowledge of bigfoot, if it weren't so common among powerful and socially influential people as to permeate society.

Does it fell better that you have had your little vent and being able to use the derogatory word "crackpot" a few times in the same post pup?
Your argument is very weak and simply baseless. It appeals back to an ignorant part of human history while ignoring completely any particular non "crackpot" achievements done by individuals who either believed in the concept of 'god(s)' to being real, or at least thought it might be possible but couldn't be known for certain.
This appeal to historic ignorance has nothing to do with today or even the likely future.
It is terribly sweeping in its accusation and mostly irrelevant to the thread topic.

Do you perhaps believe that such individuals throughout history who had some positive and lasting influence in the shaping of history were maybe strong atheists just pretending to be religious or agnostic?

Do you really believe if it wasn't for strong atheism the world would devolve into chaos and disorder?

Once again such tactics from 'strong atheism' shows the lengths they will go to in order to remain 'on top of the argument' taring all with the same brush and concluding that all those who believe in god(s) - or for that matter all those who don't know if god(s) exist are by definition "crackpots".

Really pup, what you are saying is that anyone who is not a practicing strong atheist, might as well be a "crackpot".

That is like a fundy xian claiming any christian who isn't like them are not really Christians at all.

That is the nature of strong belief systems. If you cannot detach your self from them, they become fundamental to dogma
Strong atheists are not exempt from that process.

Yours is a very, weak argument from a very weak position indeed.

 

[Navigator]

Believe, think, know can all be used as equivalents depending on context. By use of the one old trick of conflating meanings these discussions can be drug on forever.

Yes. That is exactly the truth of the matter, and why such arguments continue from ancient times.

Language being used - not to get on the same page - but specifically to muddy the waters.

I realize that you don't mean this at all tsig, and that you are claiming that "believe think and know" have been recognized as legitimate and thus are able to be used as equivalents 'depending on context' - but if you care to supply examples we can take a closer look at whether such legitimacy is actually necessary in the first place.

I suspect that perhaps such things were legitimized because they help keep groups of people arguing and never getting on the same page.
Even if that isn't the case, the affect is the same.

If common language is able to be used this way, then saying language is a means of communication is a type of oxymoron. People need to be on the same page to a point where they can be directed, but lets not have them getting on the same page to the point where they can work things out together without that direction.

Belief is surplus to requirement, so can be set aside. Know and think are still relevant.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

What if he just mails you a dictionary?

Then it could be evidence of the fact that he can use a mail system.

You do know what evidence means, right! I want evidence beyond the fact that you can think, because that is the standard you apply to everybody else. So I apply that to you. That is only fair.
So if you think there is a fundamental difference, I want evidence for that fundamental difference and not just that you think it.

 

[Navigator]

What if he just mails you a dictionary?

Dictionaries are really just records of words created by humans and are not in themselves any authority on why language is used the way it is.