Conceiving of agnosticism

Banno

Here's an argument from long ago, reposted without suitable reconsiderations...

The possible range of beliefs are:

A) one believes that god exists, or
B) one believes god does not exist, (disbelief);or
C) one, after due consideration, chooses not to commit to believing in god, nor to commit to disbelieving in god or
D) one has not formed an opinion because one has not considered the issue (lack of belief)

Position A is (amongst other things), theism. B is atheism. C is agnosticism, and D pig ignorance, which for the remainder of this post, I’ll ignore.

The law of excluded middle appears to invalidate (C), but this is superficial. It is true that either god exists, or that god does not. No other possibility is available. It is also true that either one believes that X, or one does not. But belief statements can contain existential statements wholly within their scope. They are predicates of the second order. Placing the two possible existential statements within the scope of the two possible belief statements delivers four possibilities. One can:
i. believe (god exists)
ii. not believe (god exists)
iii. believe (god does not exist)
iv. not believe (god does not exist)

Each of these can then be paired, thus:

a) A theist will accept both i and iv.

b) An atheist will accept both ii and iii

But there are two other permutations; (i and iii), and (ii and iv). One cannot consistently believe both (i) and (iii), since they would imply that one could:

v. believe (gods exists and god does not exist)

that is, believe a contradiction.

But one can consistently believe (ii) and (iv), since they would, by the same process, imply that one could
vi. not believe (god exists and god does not exist)
that is, believe a tautology. This gives us a third mode of belief,

c) an agnostic will accept both ii and iv

We are left with three possible forms of considered belief:

Committing to a belief that god exists
Committing to a belief that god does not exist
Not committing to either belief

Agnosticism is, therefore, a valid form of belief.

Cheshire

Where does Panpsychism fall?

Banno

↪Cheshire

What do you think?

TheMadFool

Agnosticism is, therefore, a valid form of belief. — Banno

I've noticed, assuming my powers of observation are any good, that the word "agnostic" has become a general term for uncertainty e.g. people say, "I'm agnostic about ghosts, fairies, and leprechauns." Uncertainty is the meat and potatoes of skepticism - a refusal to commit to a position, any position which appears in the form of a disjunction for a given proposition p viz. p v ~p.

Though there's a similarity between religious agnosticism and skepticism as displayed in their concordance on God which is either God exists or God doesn't exist and nothing further is known or can be known, the difference is that in religious agnosticism, good justifications exist, it's just that specific justifications for God's existence/nonexistence aren't good i.e. they can be refuted while in skepticism, the existence of good justifications is a question mark.

It seems possible to make the case that religious agnosticism, taken to its logical conclusion is nothing but skepticisim - agnosticism, after all, is the claim that God's existence isn't known (failure of individual justifications) or can't be known (are there such things as good justifications? or more accurately insofar as skepticism is concerned, is it possible that there are no good justifications?). Talking to an agnostic is like talking to skeptic just as talking to an engineer is like talking to a physicist.

Wayfarer

[deleted]

Pfhorrest

↪Cheshire

Panpsychism is a position on the separate question of what God is (or would be, if he existed). One can take any of the aforementioned positions on any notion of what God is, and take a different position on each different notion of God.

tim wood

↪Banno

In my book all beliefs are valid as beliefs. If you believe you're Napoleon Bonaparte, then you believe you're him. Beliefs, then, independent of considerations of truth and not properly as beliefs subject to tests of truth - unless of course the truth is in question.

You mention, "a valid form of belief." What does that mean? And if there are invalid forms, what would they be?

Banno

You mention, "a valid form of belief." — tim wood

That post was cut from a thread now lost in the depths of time, and I'm not going back to look at what it was a reply to.

tim wood

That post was cut from a thread now lost in the depths of time, and I'm not going back to look at what it was a reply to. — Banno

That is, on this you're just the messenger? Fair enough.

Banno

↪tim wood

It was a reply to Nonblack Raven, and Gassendi, of loving memory; from the previous incarnation of this forum, dated to August 2004.

180 Proof

↪Banno

:yikes:

Banno

:yikes: — 180 Proof

You and I might be the only ones here who recall those names....

Cobra

The only agnostics that matter are the ones that hold their "belief" in (ii) and (iv) with so much conviction it is indistinguishable from fact.

A few agnostics holding both positions (not thinking) are indistinguishable from very lazy atheists; and none of these positions are interesting or that important. It's basically positing a non-cognitive attitudes. In other words, water be wet.

We should question the agnostics that hold their "beliefs" with strong conviction in both assertion and practice because it all depends on what god claims they are agnostic about.

180 Proof

↪Banno

:up:

Cheshire

↪Banno

↪Cheshire What do you think? — Banno

Regarding Panpsychism
It seems a bit too coherent to throw in and measure along side the definitions of a Christian God that are usually the subject of the debate. But, it doesn't come with any greater amount of evidence. The concept was tossed out by the church and then later by logical positivist so it was probably right. It's a bit new to me, guess I'm D on this one.

Banno

You mention, "a valid form of belief." What does that mean? And if there are invalid forms, what would they be? — tim wood

On consideration, it's the emphasis that counts: Agnosticism is, therefore, a valid form of belief; as opposed, I suppose, to a valid form of knowledge - as might be suggested by "gnosis".

@Tom Storm?

Tom Storm

↪Banno

I got nothing...

As I said on the atheism thread, I always thought that you could be an agnostic atheist, in as much as atheism refers to your belief and agnosticism to knowledge.

I don't believe in a God, but I do not know that god doesn't exist.

Before I gave much thought to the matter of God, I had an intuition that God was a non-starter for me. I don't seem to need a ground of all being. The idea of a god seems contradictory and incoherent. It had no explanatory power that could not also be provided by aliens (as a for instance). Why is there something rather than nothing? Aliens. Who made the earth? Aliens. Why does there seem to be order in nature? Aliens put it there. Etc.

You are either convinced of something or you are not. I am not convinced a God exists. That's the belief part taken care of for me.

But what about knowledge? I can't imagine even hypothetically how a god or gods could be known either in principle or in practice. Are the arguments I use to support my lack of belief anything like knowing something to be not the case?

P.S. I think many so-called agnostics are actually atheists in as much as they live as atheists (without a belief in a God) they just use the word agnostic because in some contexts it may be a more socially acceptable (softer) label.

Tom Storm

We are left with three possible forms of considered belief:
Committing to a belief that god exists
Committing to a belief that god does not exist
Not committing to either belief

Agnosticism is, therefore, a valid form of belief. — Banno

Nice. The important qualifier for me is 'considered belief'. I have had more than a few people insist there is another option - 'don't care'. But we wouldn't call that 'considered'. These folk are generally nascent atheists.

Cheshire

↪Cheshire Panpsychism is a position on the separate question of what God is (or would be, if he existed). One can take any of the aforementioned positions on any notion of what God is, and take a different position on each different notion of God. — Pfhorrest

Looking it over it seems like you would have to ascribe a "will" or at least disposition to a collective mind in order to claim Panpsychism is a type of God. It seems like the closest thing rational conjecture can get towards i.e. the only thing one might reasonably pray to without the need for a storybook. It seems distinct enough not to be called God, but significant enough to destabilize an entrenched atheist with a soft spot for western notions of karma.

Mark Nyquist

↪Banno

Just came across this and I like the breakdown, but it seems like it should conclude in something singular. Or, given three beliefs, why can't two be eliminated?
Also, it might be a false menu to start with as beliefs can range through anything that is mental content.

baker

The possible range of beliefs are:

A) one believes that god exists, or
B) one believes god does not exist, (disbelief);or
C) one, after due consideration, chooses not to commit to believing in god, nor to commit to disbelieving in god or
D) one has not formed an opinion because one has not considered the issue (lack of belief)

Position A is (amongst other things), theism. B is atheism. C is agnosticism, and D pig ignorance, which for the remainder of this post, I’ll ignore. — Banno

You need to add E:

E) after considering the issue, one finds it impossible to form an opinion (in effect, this is lack of belief; the very act of considering the issue has rendered it undecidable, moot).

This is a possible natural, organic consequence of having thought and read and discussed about the issue a lot, from different perspectives.

Pfhorrest

↪Cheshire

I just realized that I misread your "panpsychism" as "pantheism" and I guess wrote that word in my own response by mistake too. Please substitute "pantheism" for "panpsychism" in my previous response.

I don't follow what panpsychism has to do with anything here (which I guess is why my brain autocorrected to "pantheism", as that would make a cromulent question on the topic of this thread).

Echarmion

A) one believes that god exists, or
B) one believes god does not exist, (disbelief);or
C) one, after due consideration, chooses not to commit to believing in god, nor to commit to disbelieving in god or — Banno

What does "not committing to a belief" here mean? Is it the quasi performative (because internal) act of open-mindedness?

The reason I'm asking is because to me, the whole crux of the issue is whether or not there is actually a mental state that corresponds specifically to agnosticism about anything, as distinct from the mental state of simply having a belief or position that one is very unsure about (and that consequently might shift constantly).

Placing the two possible existential statements within the scope of the two possible belief statements delivers four possibilities. One can:
i. believe (god exists)
ii. not believe (god exists)
iii. believe (god does not exist)
iv. not believe (god does not exist) — Banno

There is always the semantic problem that someone might consider only i. to actually be a theist position, and anyone not holding (at least) i. is therefore an atheist, since they lack the explicit belief "god exists".

Going back to what I said above, it seems to me that splitting the quasi-epistemological position from the ontological one only makes sense if "not believe" refers to an actual mental state, rather than simply the absence of any mental state concerning the ontological statement at all.

Mark Nyquist

↪Banno

This type of question would benefit from considering order of analysis.
Should you ask "theism, atheism or agnosticism?" first or something like "how does mental content exist in a physical universe?"?

Janus

I don't believe in a God, but I do not know that god doesn't exist. — Tom Storm

You are either convinced of something or you are not. I am not convinced a God exists. That's the belief part taken care of for me. — Tom Storm

You say you don't believe in a God, but you do you disbelieve in a God? You say you are not convinced a God exists, but are you convinced a God does not exist?

The important difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the former is convinced that a God does not exist.

Janus

You need to add E:

E) after considering the issue, one finds it impossible to form an opinion (in effect, this is lack of belief; the very act of considering the issue has rendered it undecidable, moot).

This is a possible natural, organic consequence of having thought and read and discussed about the issue a lot, from different perspectives. — baker

Yes, that is a significant, and on an uncharitable reading, tendentious omission on the part of the @Banno!

Tom Storm

↪Janus

You say you don't believe in a God, but you do you disbelieve in a God? You say you are not convinced a God exists, but are you convinced a God does not exist?

The important difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the former is convinced that a God does not exist. — Janus

I have heard no reasons to accept the proposition that a God exists. So I don't believe in God. But I cannot say that I know God does not exist. Show me how belief and knowledge can't be separate things.

Janus

I have heard no reasons to accept the proposition that a God exists. So I don't believe in God. But I cannot say that I know God does not exist. Show me how belief and knowledge can't be separate things. — Tom Storm

It's nothing to do with conflating belief and knowledge. Have you heard reasons to accept the proposition that God does not exist? Do believe there is no God?

T Clark

D) one has not formed an opinion because one has not considered the issue (lack of belief)

Position A is (amongst other things), theism. B is atheism. C is agnosticism, and D pig ignorance, which for the remainder of this post, I’ll ignore. — Banno

I'll give an upvote for including not having an opinion as one of the ways of addressing the existence of God, even though you don't include it in your further evaluation. That's not an option normally considered.

180 Proof

Is theism (A) realist or (B) non-realist?

(A) If realist, then:

Is theism true or not true?

If true, then theism obtains.

If not true, then non-theism (e.g. atheism) obtains.

If, however, neither true nor not true, then (B) non-realism (non-cognitive theism) obtains.

corollary – If non-realism (non-cognitive theism), then ignosticism – religious observance or not – obtains.

Whence "agnosticism" (other than as a polite, 19th century euphemism for religious skepticism)? :chin:

Tom Storm

It's nothing to do with conflating belief and knowledge. Have you heard reasons to accept the proposition that God does not exist? Do believe there is no God? — Janus

I've already stated my belief. Putting it in the negative makes no discernable difference so it is true that I believe there is no God.

Conceiving of agnosticism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions