Agnoticism is the only true philosophy

Forums: Philosophy, Agnosticism
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Hi guys..

My thesis is that agnoticism is the only intellectually honest philosophy..

by agnoticism i mean:

Quote:

The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.

I have yet to hear a good refutal of this thesis..

Theism suggests that scripture via special revilation can grant absolute knowledge of god. but what has scripture granted other then eyes through which to see the world? the word 'god' is in refrence to the precondion of true intelligibility.. but not PROOF of true intelligibility.. question remains.. WHAT is the precondition for true intelligibility?

Atheism suggests true inference can be made once ALL of _the_ smallest material entity's functions are known.. for these would be the building blocks of all existence. yet atheism has not refuted an immaterial entity being the precondition for the smallest material entity's existence..

Leaving us with an ambiguous human epistemology.. either what we experience(and our Interpretation of it) is true or it is false!

To then claim ~Agnosticism will end in conflict inevitably among us.

Personal pride is intellectually dishonest unless a conflict is desired!

I have made assertions and made a case.. for agnosticism.

This is then entirely dependent of the acceptence of the individual reading it.. but my claim is that in the event of ~agnoticism conflict is unavoidable among humans. the none acceptence of my thesis is then to desire conflict!

desiering conflict is neither rational nor justified given ANY epistemology.

Please give me your thoughts on this thesis...

thank you

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,249 • Replies: 12

No top replies

Quote:

Atheism suggests true inference can be made once ALL of _the_ smallest material entity's functions are known.. for these would be the building blocks of all existence.

Wrong. That would be materialism.

Atheism suggests that there is no reason to believe in gods.

0 Replies

Re: Agnoticism is the only true philosophy
MM

Quote:

The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.

I have nothing against religious agnosticism.
But I think the definition you gave of agnosticism, seems to me more adjusted to some sort of radical empiricism, not far from Berkeley and Hume.

And your definition raises several problems.
First, if absolute truth is unattainable, then you cannot have exact knowledge of perceptual phenomena.
Second, if by perceptual phenomena you mean things that are object of perception, then all knowledge is impossible, because in order to know something you must establish relations. And relations, themselves, are not object of perceptions. For example, you cannot see or year causes. Relations are conceptual. You cannot see time or space (as dimensions). You can't even say: "it's cold out there", because "cold" is not a thing,is a qualification.
All science would be impossible. For example, you have no perception of gravity, energy, or even the number 0.
Even when you say "snow" you are using a concept, within a specific language.

If, by "perceptual phenomena" you mean the configuration your perception gives to the external stimulus, than you are near Kant's position. But then you must accept his "categories" of the reason, like causality. If not, you fall in the same problem above.

Perhaps you should define with more precision what you mean by "perceptual phenomena".

0 Replies

Re: Agnoticism is the only true philosophy

val wrote:

I have nothing against religious agnosticism.
But I think the definition you gave of agnosticism, seems to me more adjusted to some sort of radical empiricism, not far from Berkeley and Hume.

I thought it sounded like skepticism. Although Hume might be considered a forerunner of radical empiricism, that label is more appropriately applied to William James and other pragmatists of the 19th-20th centuries.

0 Replies

well yeah of course agnosticism is the only true philosophy just like Skippy is the only true peanut butter. Do you prefer smooth and creamy or crunchy? would that be on white bread and why oh why does it always have to be grape jelly?

0 Replies

Hi val

thank you for your thoughtful comments.. As for the comparison to Hume and Berkely.. I'm not so sure.

Quote:

Relations are conceptual. You cannot see time or space (as dimensions). You can't even say: "it's cold out there", because "cold" is not a thing,is a qualification.
All science would be impossible. For example, you have no perception of gravity, energy, or even the number 0.
Even when you say "snow" you are using a concept, within a specific language.

Look at it this way.. "you can't help but know what you know." this doesn't make what you know "true" nor does it make it "false".. whatever it is that you know is entirly subjective.. What do you know?

"there is time".. can you prove it? can you doubt it? is it absolutely true?
"there is no time".. Same questions!

It's the positive to Nihilism negative.. given that all values are baseless all synthetic values are equal.

If you see a tree and say "praise nature" it is only a matter of semantics when another man says "praise god"..

Some things we simply "cannot help but know".. but what is the correct interpitation of it?

One might see time as a liner stretch into eternity or one could think of it as circular and looping..

Gravity could be thought of as indipendent of the earth(as it was in the old days) or one could state "matter atracts matter" and explain it thus..

Agnoticism is not to be confused with nihilism.. it's not "nothing exists" it's "EVERYTHING exists".. if you have a concept of god.. well then you have a concept of god.. if you DONT then you DONT... What does it matter?

Must what you know be "better" then what someone else knows? why is your knowledge any better then his? is it personal pride? Desire to have all mankind conform to you? or is it fear? fear of having to conform to HIS conceptions of "reality"?

Agnosticism is saying "knowledge is true! but WHAT knowledge IS, is a subjective matter, where one is no more true then the other"

Does my response satisfy you?

Adrian:

Quote:

Wrong. That would be materialism.

Atheism suggests that there is no reason to believe in gods.

ok.. when would an atheist find reason to believe in a god? When a booming voice from the sky told him to? couldn't that just be aliens playing tricks on us?

God's nature is elusive.. if there is no reason to believe it then you are a materialist!

0 Replies

Quote:

Look at it this way.. "you can't help but know what you know." this doesn't make what you know "true" nor does it make it "false".. whatever it is that you know is entirly subjective.. What do you know?

"there is time".. can you prove it? can you doubt it? is it absolutely true?
"there is no time".. Same questions!

What one experience is subjective, but to "know" something, reason is required. I see two identical objects, let's say two apples, I know that since they are identical, they have similar properties. 1 + 1 = 2 is also a rational knowledge.

There is time and there is no time are both true for different contexts. It depends on what one mean when they talk about time. A person's definition of time might be the rate of change, and that is true enough because there is change, as one's thoughts are changing itself. If what a person's mean by there is no time is that the only thing that we are experiencing right now is the present, then there is no time is true for that context.

Quote:

Agnoticism is not to be confused with nihilism.. it's not "nothing exists" it's "EVERYTHING exists".. if you have a concept of god.. well then you have a concept of god.. if you DONT then you DONT... What does it matter?

Everything exist argument is false on a universal level. Psychotic people think they know or sees things that are not there, yet we know that they're psychotic, also proven by neurologists. How can two things that are contradictory both be true at the same time?

What does it matter if there is a concept of God or other things? Well, if a person starts claiming that they believe God is telling them to hurt people, then it does matter because that is a delusional excuse that harms people.

Quote:

Must what you know be "better" then what someone else knows? why is your knowledge any better then his? is it personal pride? Desire to have all mankind conform to you? or is it fear? fear of having to conform to HIS conceptions of "reality"?

Must what you know be no more truer or no less truer than what other knows? Is this not the actual denial of there being a truth and thus clinging on to ideas even if it is false? I see this as an object to deny the presence of truths and to place more importance on one's ideas. That's selfish and false at the same time.

Quote:

Agnosticism is saying "knowledge is true! but WHAT knowledge IS, is a subjective matter, where one is no more true then the other"

I find that irrational. If one thing is no more true than the other, then a person saying 1 + 1 = 3, is as true as 1 + 1 = 2.

This is not philosophy, it's a layman argument.

Our phenomenas are governed by at least two things: senses and rational knowledge. If I do not have the latter, I would only see a tree when I look at a tree but do not have any idea of what it is. However, if I have the latter, I identify the object as a tree and thus would know what a tree is if I see another one.

Reason in this sense is a bridge between the phenomena and the noumena. As phenomenas experience what occurs in the noumena, reason identifies it, and thus allows us to "know" at least part of the noumena.
This is just my theory for now.

Peace.

0 Replies

Hi Ray

Very interresting comments.. I think i can conclude that you are an atheist... am I wrong?

Quote:

What one experience is subjective, but to "know" something, reason is required. I see two identical objects, let's say two apples, I know that since they are identical, they have similar properties. 1 + 1 = 2 is also a rational knowledge.

your argument seems self-refuting.. WHY is reason required?

I will skip ahead to where I can answer this question..

Quote:

find that irrational. If one thing is no more true than the other, then a person saying 1 + 1 = 3, is as true as 1 + 1 = 2.

This is not philosophy, it's a layman argument.

Very interresting assertion on your part... 1+1=3 IS VERY PHILOSOPHICAL!!! (here's an assertion from me to you!)

IF ACCEPTED AS TRUE.. I can conlcude that the value of the nr. "1" is to "the person saying 1+1=3" the equilivent of MY "1.5" value..

So if 1+1=3 -->(implies), 2+2=6^(and)8+8=24

What do you think binary systems are? 1+1=10... HUH???
if you ACTUALLY TOOK FOR GRANTED WHAT YOU WERE TOLD... then you could find the logical system inherent in the madness!! and therefore ACCEPT IT AS LOGICAL!!!

same with epistomology... and metaphysiscs..

it's all a matter of semantics.. and interpitation.. there is no TRUE KNOWLEDGE... there is only knowledge..

deal with it! or refute it.. I have zero tolorence for arrogent assertions made... like what you did in the above quote..

That is not to say i'm not interrested in a refutal.. but i'm not interrested in ARROGENT ASSERTIONS... make a point.. or don't speak to me.. it's a waste of both of our time..

I am humbled by ALL ignorence.. NOT all arrogance..

ask.. don't assert.. if there is a hole in my argument.. ASK "is this a hole?" don't ASSERT "this is a hole!"... or else I will respond in kind..

please respect my wishes

thank you..

0 Replies

I'm an agnostic actually (on the view of God and supernaturalism), but not like what you described. :wink:

I even started a thread in the religion forum about agnosticism being the only truthful standpoint on God. Laughing

Quote:

your argument seems self-refuting.. WHY is reason required?

Reason is required to "know" something. If we don't have reason we can't relate one thing to another or solve problems. In another word, without reason there is no concept of identity, no awareness of knowledge of things. That's my view on it for now.

Quote:

Very interresting assertion on your part... 1+1=3 IS VERY PHILOSOPHICAL!!! (here's an assertion from me to you!)

IF ACCEPTED AS TRUE.. I can conlcude that the value of the nr. "1" is to "the person saying 1+1=3" the equilivent of MY "1.5" value..

So if 1+1=3 -->(implies), 2+2=6^(and)8+8=24

What do you think binary systems are? 1+1=10... HUH???
if you ACTUALLY TOOK FOR GRANTED WHAT YOU WERE TOLD... then you could find the logical system inherent in the madness!! and therefore ACCEPT IT AS LOGICAL!!!

There is a clear difference between one who knows what 1, 2, and 3 means by another person who assert it, and a person who means 2 when he says 3.

Person A: person who understands the number system who made a mistake in asserting that 1 + 1 = 3.

Person B: person who meant 1 + 1 = 2 when he or she claimed that 1 + 1 = 3.

In person B's case, he or she attached her own meaning to the number 3, but the essential logic is the same for even if the person expressed what we know as 2 as the number 3, the meaning is still 1 + 1 = 2.

Quote:

same with epistomology... and metaphysiscs..

it's all a matter of semantics.. and interpitation.. there is no TRUE KNOWLEDGE... there is only knowledge..

What??? You don't make sense. We might attach different meaning to certain words, but the meaning that they implied are the same.

Quote:

deal with it! or refute it.. I have zero tolorence for arrogent assertions made... like what you did in the above quote..

Wait a minute, you're the one who's suppose to argue for complete tolerance, etc, remember? :wink:

Quote:

That is not to say i'm not interrested in a refutal.. but i'm not interrested in ARROGENT ASSERTIONS... make a point.. or don't speak to me.. it's a waste of both of our time..

Arrogant assertations? I'm telling you what I find to be true, and you don't have to accept it if you don't want to. You're the one who's attacking me personally here. Calling my assertions arrogance when you don't even consider your own as a possibility of this arrogance you are talking about.

Quote:

I am humbled by ALL ignorence.. NOT all arrogance..

OOOOOOOK. Do you want me to ignore you?

Quote:

ask.. don't assert.. if there is a hole in my argument.. ASK "is this a hole?" don't ASSERT "this is a hole!"... or else I will respond in kind..

Your original post was also an assertation. Why can't I assert what I think? You're self-refuting yourself right now. It's alright if you respond with criticisms, but please, don't attack people personally.

0 Replies

Hi Ray

I might have misjudged your character.. Your only problem was that you failed to see the philosophical importens of what I was saying.. asserting that i wasn't being philosophical.. I took that as an attack of my person..

however I see now that you truly don't understand the philosophical significance of what i'm saying..

Quote:

Reason is required to "know" something. If we don't have reason we can't relate one thing to another or solve problems. In another word, without reason there is no concept of identity, no awareness of knowledge of things. That's my view on it for now.

you are not speaking of "reason".. you are speaking of a justified "system of thought".. logic in fact..

you are saying that without logic we cannot understand anything.. how did you learn to understand logic? you were born with this "system of thought" right? who or what gave you this system of thought? who is garanteeing that this system of thought can reveal true knowledge?

"GOD" is this garantee.. and "god" is perfection incarnate..

now you tell me.. is the BIBLE god incarnate? is the UNIVERSE god incarnate? is Nature God incarnate? are YOU?

what's so interresting is that... the answer to ALL of these questions are YES.. there is a perfect REASON for EVERYTHING.. but wether or not you can SEE the REASON depends on you accepting EVERYTHING..

Quote:

Person A: person who understands the number system who made a mistake in asserting that 1 + 1 = 3.

Person B: person who meant 1 + 1 = 2 when he or she claimed that 1 + 1 = 3.

In person B's case, he or she attached her own meaning to the number 3, but the essential logic is the same for even if the person expressed what we know as 2 as the number 3, the meaning is still 1 + 1 = 2.

I'll give you a counter example.. you take a trip to denmark..

You can't speak danish.. but you speak english.. the danish guy is trying to comunicate with you.. he speaks a little english to.

Danish guy: "You need an air-ticket to get on the flying mashine!"
You: "oh.. I need a plane-ticket to get on the plane?"

He was THINKING the same as you.. but he didn't SAY the same thing you did..

1+1=3

the guy knows the function of + and =

but he's confused about the MEANING of the # he's using.. you could correct him.. or you could learn to understand him..

Quote:

What??? You don't make sense. We might attach different meaning to certain words, but the meaning that they implied are the same.

Do you honestly think that because someone says "god" they mean some old guy sitting on a cloud?

god = omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenelovence.. ect.. all to perfection
UNIVERSE = ALL THE SAME THINGS!!! all to perfection..

learn to translate the bible and tora and what have you to mean it's conceptual meaning... not it's LITTERAL..

fundementalists stck to LITTERAL meaning.. but not even THEY agree what the LITTERAL meaning IS..

w eall have a concept of "GOD" or perfection incarnate.. wether that concept includes immaterial entities or not.. who cares?

none of us can prove it one way or the other anyway..

Quote:

Wait a minute, you're the one who's suppose to argue for complete tolerance, etc, remember?

I am tolorent.. but I will only speak if I am listened to.. otherwise I'm wasting my breath on deaf ears.. So if you have already judged me to have no worthy knowledge.. have a nice day and a nice life.. we are done.. But I might have mis-judged you.. stick around.. and we might come to an agreement..

Quote:

Your original post was also an assertation. Why can't I assert what I think? You're self-refuting yourself right now. It's alright if you respond with criticisms, but please, don't attack people personally.

you judged ME, friend.. I never judged you..

I responded to all the points you made.. but the comment about philosophical insignificance.. We didn't need.

I know my original post was assertions.. but that's how an argument begins.. I say something.. and you point out where it doesn't make sense.. giving room for me to explain..

agreed?

0 Replies

Quote:

you are not speaking of "reason".. you are speaking of a justified "system of thought".. logic in fact..

you are saying that without logic we cannot understand anything.. how did you learn to understand logic? you were born with this "system of thought" right? who or what gave you this system of thought? who is garanteeing that this system of thought can reveal true knowledge?

"GOD" is this garantee.. and "god" is perfection incarnate..

now you tell me.. is the BIBLE god incarnate? is the UNIVERSE god incarnate? is Nature God incarnate? are YOU?

what's so interresting is that... the answer to ALL of these questions are YES.. there is a perfect REASON for EVERYTHING.. but wether or not you can SEE the REASON depends on you accepting EVERYTHING..

"Reason is the faculty enabling us to apply being, to render perceptions intellective, to separate ideas from these perceptions, and to integrate and unite the ideas in judgements and reasonings. The power to apply being as moral law can be called moral reason.
www.oloswestriver.org/newpage11.htm
"

I was talking about the rational faculty of humanity.

Quote:

I'll give you a counter example.. you take a trip to denmark..

You can't speak danish.. but you speak english.. the danish guy is trying to comunicate with you.. he speaks a little english to.

Danish guy: "You need an air-ticket to get on the flying mashine!"
You: "oh.. I need a plane-ticket to get on the plane?"

He was THINKING the same as you.. but he didn't SAY the same thing you did..

1+1=3

the guy knows the function of + and =

but he's confused about the MEANING of the # he's using.. you could correct him.. or you could learn to understand him..

Yes, he didn't say the same thing as me, but his meaning is the same.

I've mentioned that there are two types of 1 + 1 = 3 statements. Either that the person misunderstood 3 for 2, or that the person has made a mistake in stating that 1 + 1 = 3.

If it was the latter, then yeah you should understand why he made the mistake, but you must also know that that reasoning is wrong and correct him or her. I don't see the agnosticism you mentioned take this into account.

Quote:

Do you honestly think that because someone says "god" they mean some old guy sitting on a cloud?

No, and that's why I said what I said. Here: Suppose that a person is trying to say A, and uses a word: Y. Now, there's another person who understands A, but what he thinks the word Y mean is another meaning, B.

That's what I meant. In both cases they are right in their meaning, but does not agree on the same word.

Quote:

I am tolorent.. but I will only speak if I am listened to.. otherwise I'm wasting my breath on deaf ears.. So if you have already judged me to have no worthy knowledge.. have a nice day and a nice life.. we are done.. But I might have mis-judged you.. stick around.. and we might come to an agreement..

That is not what I meant and I apologize. Your post made me react strongly because it seems to imply that what you posted is an attack on philosophy in general.

I believe there to be an absolute truth where our perceptual phenomena perceives part of the noumena, and our rational capacity to identify and "know."

0 Replies

Mad Man

If I understood you well,you are saying that all knowledge is true regarding the person who claims to have that knowledge. Given two different propositions about the same fact they both are true, but not regarding the fact itself.

If my interpretation is right, than I strongly disagree with you.
If you say: "it is raining" and I say "It is not raining", one of us can be right or wrong, but not the both of us. Because it is logically impossible that, in same time and space, it is raining and it isn't. That has nothing to do with our senses, here we are only dealing with logic and language.

On the other hand, two different statements about the same empirical fact, can have different effects: if I say "This bottle has poison and if you drink it you'll die" and you say "this bottle has not poison" and then you drink it and die poisoned, my proposition has a greater probability of being true than yours.

I agree with you that there is no absolute knowledge. But that doesn't imply that a statement has the same value of it's opposite.
If that was the case, then if I said "there is absolute knowledge" would have the same value of your statement, according to your own principles.

0 Replies

val wrote:

Mad Man

If I understood you well,you are saying that all knowledge is true regarding the person who claims to have that knowledge. Given two different propositions about the same fact they both are true, but not regarding the fact itself.

If my interpretation is right, than I strongly disagree with you.
If you say: "it is raining" and I say "It is not raining", one of us can be right or wrong, but not the both of us. Because it is logically impossible that, in same time and space, it is raining and it isn't. That has nothing to do with our senses, here we are only dealing with logic and language.

On the other hand, two different statements about the same empirical fact, can have different effects: if I say "This bottle has poison and if you drink it you'll die" and you say "this bottle has not poison" and then you drink it and die poisoned, my proposition has a greater probability of being true than yours.

I agree with you that there is no absolute knowledge. But that doesn't imply that a statement has the same value of it's opposite.
If that was the case, then if I said "there is absolute knowledge" would have the same value of your statement, according to your own principles.

Indeed!! All values are baseless.. therefor all values are equal..

Whatever you believe and do following.. is as true as whatever I believe and do following..

Only "rational justified" beliefs are those that are helpful(to you) in your everyday life.. (getting killed by poison was a pretty bad idea, and not very helpful)

but as "helpful" is a subjective term.. it becomes:
All knowledge is subjective of "that which is objective".. as TRUTH is objective then it fallows all knowldge is PARTIAL truth.. hence _certainty_ about first principles is lost.

rationally rendering everyone agnostic..

0 Replies

Agnoticism is the only true philosophy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know