Why agnosticism isn't a rational position

Steve,

You base your above argument on assumptions about the word "know". Theists say they "know" and agnostics say they "don't know" but neither of them is prepared to discuss what they mean by "know" except in terms of "naive realism".

Atheists on the other hand can take the line that "knowing" involves "needing" and because they don't need "a deity" the word "knowledge" doesn't have come into it. What atheists "need" is that their fellow men should not endanger or interfer with the lives of others by appealing to a plethora of ad hoc "divine authorities". It is a projection of their own simplistic view of "knowledge" that leads agnostics and theists to accuse theists of claiming "superior knowledge" when in fact that are claiming "superior rationality".

0 Replies

Oh, and George--would that one could "just stop thinking about it." However, the proliferation of loud-mouthed and pushy theists, many of whom are of murderous proclivities, makes the option chimerical.

0 Replies

typo

....to accuse atheists of claiming "superior knowledge" when in fact they are claiming "superior rationality".

0 Replies

Excellent subtlety, Fresco. I do not claim to "know" there is no God--Frank assumes that I, as an atheist, am making that claim. But I am merely claiming that theism is irrational in that it makes no logical or intuitive sense. In short, I have no need for a belief in a God.
But I DO feel a need to believe in the "mystical thesis", i.e., the "perspective" that I am (like you) a facet of the unitary/integral "living" Cosmos. I do not claim that to be a rational position; I acknowledge it to be a non-(or extra) rational position, an intuition that is logically and scientifically unjustifiable, and yet "true"--in a sense "religious".

0 Replies

JLN, that reminds me of a thread we had on 'anti-theism' vs atheism. I'll see if I can find a link.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Oh, and George--would that one could "just stop thinking about it." However, the proliferation of loud-mouthed and pushy theists, many of whom are of murderous proclivities, makes the option chimerical.

And yet - a few pages back - you affirmed this as the option you take.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Oh, and George--would that one could "just stop thinking about it." However, the proliferation of loud-mouthed and pushy theists, many of whom are of murderous proclivities, makes the option chimerical.

And yet - a few pages back - you affirmed this as the option you take.

It gets very tedious having you translate what i have written into terms convenient to your contempt, and then attempting to throw them up in my face as "what you said," or "what you wrote."

This is what i wrote:

Setanta wrote:

. . . it is also entirely possible that a rational, intelligent person can decide that absent sufficient information, the rather idle speculation of cosmic origins, which impinges not at all upon one's existence, is nothing more than a quaint curiousity, fit for after dinner discussions with those sufficiently dull of wit as to become mightily exercised by questions unanswered and unanswerable. (The original quote has been corrected only so far as was necessary to correct the misspelling of "become," which had been written "be come.")

That is not in any way, shape, form or fashion a contention that i "just stop thinking about it." It certainly does not give to the topic the importance that it appears you consider it to merit. It does not, however, suggest that i have just stopped thinking about it.

As i noted, i wish that i could--sadly, our society is full of people, even those who are otherwise well-educated, who continually foist their imaginary friend superstitions off onto others.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

However, I find it (agnosticism)a most uunsatisfactory position, mostly because I perceive an element in human consciousness (and my own) that goes beyond the merely physical.

Setanta wrote:

It is refreshing, though, to see that you acknowledge being inhuman, even if only inferentially. The human desire to concieve of the supernatural is concommittant with the human desire to avoid acknowledging unpleasant realities while indulging a compulsion to wish for reality to change to suit one's desires.

I think your explanation above is often the case - but not necessarily so. I find much that goes well beyond that - in myself and others I know.

georgeob1 wrote:

In addition, on a purely rational basis, I see the blind leap to 'no god' as a far greater jump than that required to god.

Setanta wrote:

How very silly--if not actually idiotic. The one alleged "leap" is no leap at all--it is simply a matter of adhering to William of Occam's injunction not to multiply causes. The latter "leap," however, entails imagining an entire host of fairy tales. No wonder the Jesuits also seem either falsely cynical or pathologically neurotic.

I repeatedly made a very clear distinction between a belief in a god creator and all religions. Perhaps you didn't notice it. I also pointed to the dilemma of physics and cosmology in comparing the 'leap' options. I believe my conclusion is neither silly nor idiotic. Moreover, I noted that, comparing the cosmological alternatives of quantum multiverses and other infinite regressions of cause and effect, Occam's rule can be interpreted to favor theism. Could your own prejudices be getting in the way of your interpretation of what you read?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

However, the proliferation of loud-mouthed and pushy theists, many of whom are of murderous proclivities, makes the option chimerical.

That's a very cheap smear.Theists have no monopoly on murderous proclivities.Check out Hitler,Stalin,Pol Pot and Mao.

Do you really think we are that thick?

0 Replies

Hitler was a christian.

0 Replies

As much as I like the subtle slant that's been placed upon Atheism over the last few pages, is this really the true position of the majority who claim to be atheists? The position some of you have described is much, much more in line with my ideas and yet if, in the past, I've been forced to stick a label on myself, it's been an agnostic one. You've made me think about this, I'm just not convinced yet though.

0 Replies

http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

0 Replies

http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
Shocked

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Hitler was a christian.

So was Stalin in his youth. Both later rejected religion and belief in God: and both actively persecuted thr religions they left.

0 Replies

"Was" a christian. Doesn't say anything about leaving or born-agains.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

The human desire to concieve of the supernatural is concommittant with the human desire to avoid acknowledging unpleasant realities while indulging a compulsion to wish for reality to change to suit one's desires.

And what pray is the human desire to not conceive of the supernatural avoiding when such a desire goes against the grain of all human history and,like its counterpart, is merely the result of physical states of the brain apt for having such a desire having been conditioned to so have.

It could be a fear of not being noticed at the very least.

0 Replies

Just done some reading, "weak/negative" and "strong/positive" atheism, interesting.

0 Replies

spendi has it partly right; it's a fear of knowing our life on this planet is short and final.

0 Replies

My remark stated that many theists have murderous proclivities. That is not an unreasonable statement, nor does it claim that all theists have such proclivities, nor does it claim that only theists have such proclivities. It is worthy of note, however, that some theists who have murderous proclivities murder in the name of their deity, a fact for which the evidence is the assertions of the very theists in question. However, there is absolutely no evidence that Stalin (a former Orthodox monk), nor Hitler (who professed christianity throughout his bizarre life, despite Geogre's unsupported contention that Hitler persecuted theists), nor Moa nor Pol Pot had murderous proclivities because of a desire to promote atheisim or agnosticism.

Yes, Spendi, i do consider you to be "that thick," and, in fact, in so far as concerns history, a good deal thicker than that--since you ask.

0 Replies

Nietzsche may be called a "positive atheist" in that he advocated a kind of "this-world pietism." He found that THIS world is all that exists and contains all that is needed for a thoroughly satisfying life. The challenge is to overcome onerself, not to transcend nature. In other words, there no need for an otherworldly or supernaturalist orientation, only a creative thisworldly and naturalist orientation. I endorse this perspective completely.

0 Replies

Why agnosticism isn't a rational position

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know