Why agnosticism isn't a rational position

dyslexia wrote:

The only rational response to this thread is no response.

Good point....However the stakes have been raised by the association of between "theism" and "terrorism" such that "agnosticism" may no longer be a politically viable position.

0 Replies

Frank,

Alas, predictably supercilious repetition instead of engagement ! I thought you might have mellowed a little over the years but you still take you position as the chief bouncer at "agnostic gigs" quite seriously don't you.

0 Replies

fresco wrote-

Quote:

the words "existence", "knowledge", and "belief" are up for grabs.

Maybe that isn't true.They may be simply sounds which represent states of the brain in transient physico/chemico configurations (physical objects) resulting from conditioning in a similar manner that rainfall configures the terrain.Which is to say,I suppose,entirely subjective and with no possibility of being otherwise.They are word sounds which the user has found useful in some way and by habit has a ready access to these physico/chemico states they represent.The idea that they are "up for grabs" suggests they can be envisaged as being anything else.

Have you read Armstrong yet fresco?

0 Replies

Spendius,

The possibility of isomorphism between "brain states" and cognitive entities such as "words" is part of what some philosophers have called "the hard problem of consciousness". It may be related to general epistemological problems such as "the nature of knowledge" but generally we are talking at a sub-level to the general issues.

One such issue is that "evidence" is "observer specific". To argue that "evidence" is "lacking" or "ambiguous" is to ignore the perceptual set of the observer. In as much that "group identity" implies "common perceptual set" then there may be agreement as to "evidence".

(Sorry, not yet read Armstrong....have you got a link ?)

0 Replies

Frank,
In your barrage of ad-homs and guffaws you never bothered to actually adress my argument.
You seem to be locked into your position to the point of constriction. Pity, I had higher hopes for you.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Frank,
In your barrage of ad-homs and guffaws you never bothered to actually adress my argument.
You seem to be locked into your position to the point of constriction. Pity, I had higher hopes for you.

I'm not interested in your hopes, Doc.

I have addressed your arguments...such as they are. You have not addressed my response.

0 Replies

Quote:

I have addressed your arguments

No, you have dropped a couple cliche arguments for agnosticism. You have not even touched, or even made it clear you comprehend the argument I made in the original post.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

I have addressed your arguments

No, you have dropped a couple cliche arguments for agnosticism. You have not even touched, or even made it clear you comprehend the argument I made in the original post.

Doc...

...I blew the doors off your cart in the other thread...and you ran like a scared rabbit.

There is absolutely no reason for me to duck any supposed arguments you made here...so stop with the nonsense.

I am an agnostic.

Here is my position on the issue of "there is a God" vs. "there are no gods":

I do not know.

I suspect you don't know either.

I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

Now...if you are suggesting that is not a rational position...put out some real arguments.

I will enjoy the laugh.

0 Replies

Dr S,

If you are hoping for some "philosophy" from Frank note that I have been waiting since 2002 !

0 Replies

The shear irrationality of aguing the rationality of theism, atheism, agnosticism is quite mind-boggling.

0 Replies

The shear irrationality of aguing the rationality of existence blah blah....

0 Replies

Frank,

Quote:

Doc...

...I blew the doors off your cart in the other thread...and you ran like a scared rabbit.

That's quite the imagination you have there.

Quote:

There is absolutely no reason for me to duck any supposed arguments you made here...so stop with the nonsense.

Having re-read the thread yet again, it remains a complete mystery where and how you addressed my argument. Why don't you point it out.

Quote:

I am an agnostic.

Here is my position on the issue of "there is a God" vs. "there are no gods":

I do not know.

I suspect you don't know either.

I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

Now...if you are suggesting that is not a rational position...put out some real arguments.

I will enjoy the laugh.

Well, since you sport the 'I'm right and that's that' attitude normally reserved for theists, I doubt I am going to get anywhere with you, I am not too optimistic that this will go anywhere useful...
But for since you are unwilling/unable to comprehend the argument I already put forward, let me re-word it for you in hopes it might sink in this time.
Agnosticism is a position that asserts 'I don't know' to the proposition 'deities exist'
The proposition 'deities exist' is but one of infinite possible equally unevidenced guesses as to why 'the universe' , 'life', etc exists.
This leaves the odds of the proposition 'deities exist' being approximately one in infinity.
It is true that there is that one in infinity longshot chance that that particular unevidenced guess is true, but getting hit 100 million times by lightning in one day is massively more probable.
So saying 'maybe that one is true' is only slightly more rational than saying 'that one is true' in regards to any given 'guess', including the one agnosticism represents.
Until there is something to indicate maybe there may be deities,..something...anything..that points in that direction...
Agnosticism remains irrational.

PS frank, your irrational and downright delusional (with regards to your projections as to my reactions/positions) posts sort of serve me as a character witness, if you are the champion of 'agnosticism'

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Dr S,

If you are hoping for some "philosophy" from Frank note that I have been waiting since 2002 !

Yes..I'm starting to think I may be wasting my time....

0 Replies

dys wrote-

Quote:

The shear irrationality of aguing the rationality of theism, atheism, agnosticism is quite mind-boggling.

That might not be true dys.

What the agnostic does is keep his options open.He can always repent his sins in intensive care.The bigger the addiction to sin in ordinary situations the more likely agnosticism is to stand guard.

The atheist has no concept of sin.Illegal is the nearest an atheist can get to sin although I have met some who can be mortified by minor breaches in etiquette in posh ambiences.

It is quite rational to piss yourself laughing according to Rabelais and he was a doctor don't you know?

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

This leaves the odds of the proposition 'deities exist' being approximately one in infinity.

Beautifully worded that. If Asimov was alive he'd have you over for supper!

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

The only rational response to this thread is no response.

But it is a good show. Smile

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
This leaves the odds of the proposition 'deities exist' being approximately one in infinity.
Beautifully worded that. If Asimov was alive he'd have you over for supper!

I take that as high praise on a couple of levels Smile

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

What IS any theology, if not a guess? In order for one form of theology to be any more credible than another, it must have reasonable evidenciary backing. Since no theology present's any real evidenciary backing, they all sit on the same level playing feild. Guesses.
There are probably thousands of 'theologies' that have and are being practiced and all of them wildly different in their creation myths and moral codes. (although most share some basic humanistic behavior qualities)
But being that each theology is no more than a guess, what makes existing theologies any more valid than ones that do not exist?(in fact, the lack of evidenciary backing despite extensive searches makes existing theologies LESS likely to be true than non existing ones) How many possible theological myths can the universe hold?
Infinite.
So what are the chances of any one being correct? About one in googleplex.
Is it rational to put any real weight or credibility in any one theological school of thought or practice? No. Is it rational to put any credibility into all of them combined? no, not really because they are just several thousand guesses out of infinite guesses.
Agnostic means;"not knowing if there is a god", (by todays common definition anyway), and being that "god" is just one guess, agnosticism is nearly as irational as the theism itself.

Some theologies ARE more credible than others. Theologies have been competing against one another for thousands of years, with those that are less credible or provide fewer benefits to believers losing out to ones that have evolved to provide more compelling arguments for belief or better meet the needs of their adherents - or ones that aggressively proselytize. Few people believe in Zeus and company any more.

It is possible that some as-yet unimagined theology is more correct than any existing ones, but if there is at least one god who can communicate with at least some human beings, odds are it has managed to transmit some ideas of itself to mankind. Therefore it is far more likely that an existing theology is correct than a non-existing one, if gods exist who care what we think or do.

There are millions of people who believe that they have had direct, personal experience of God or believe that God has answered their prayers or influenced their lives in some way. While this may not be scientific proof of God's existence, I cannot discount the possibility that at least a few of these people are accurately reporting real experiences of God. I personally have no such direct experience of God, but perhaps only people who develop the necessary brain structures (through genes, meditation/prayer or whatever), have an emotional need for belief or are Chosen by God can perceive its communications.

It is rational to believe in a theology that enhances your status in society and your life by providing shared goals/beliefs, opportunities to attract quality mates, business contacts, answers to life's questions, and/or inner peace. It is just as rational to reject beliefs that are at odds with science and logic (though such rejection may be punished by your society). It is also rational to refuse to make a choice based on incomplete information. Life experiences and values determine what each person will consider rational.

Whether we chose our theology with our heart, our head, our heritage, or just gut instinct, none of us can be absolutely sure that the gods we choose not to believe in are entirely man-made. There may be a god who is reflected differently in each theology, or gods may exist completely outside of our ability to comprehend their presence or purpose.

Whatver the truth, belief and its consequences in the world are quite real, regardless of whether or not gods are.

0 Replies

I think that being agnostic does not necessarily mean that you have no opinion as to the existence of a God, but that you realize that claiming you "know" that there is a God or there isn't, is not quite true.

You have to define what a God is first, and if you mean a God to be a "first cause," then like the very "ultimate nature" of quantum physics, it is not known "yet." It does not necessarily mean that it is impossible to know, but that you do not have the full information to firmly conclude that there is or there isn't. Until then, you would only claim to know as to what is most likely.

If you mean God to be a concept equivalent to a higher being, then it is empirically unknowable unless the being revealed itself to us somehow. Ultimately, the concept of a God to an agnostic should be left out of ordinary decisions, but an opinion can be held as a "guess" to the metaphysical question.

I guess you can argue on what is meant here or by some other people of the concept of knowing.

Quote:

Is it rational to put any real weight or credibility in any one theological school of thought or practice? No. Is it rational to put any credibility into all of them combined? no, not really because they are just several thousand guesses out of infinite guesses.

It depends on the basis and rationale of the so-called belief.

The presence of an improbability does not spell out the agnostics to be irrational. It's more likely to suggest that the agnostic is rational, because the presence of even a small probability means that neither the existence of or the absence of a God can be totally ruled out.
It's like a lottery, there is a huge odd against you, but you don't say that you will or will not win if you participate, but that you may win or lose.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

The shear irrationality of aguing the rationality of theism, atheism, agnosticism is quite mind-boggling.

True, dat.

Another thing: Why would everything a human being thinks/believe be rational?

We aren't completely rational creatures, and thank *the fairy sparkledust spirits* for that.

0 Replies

Why agnosticism isn't a rational position

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know