What god(s) are these agnostics agnostic about? Are they agnostic when it comes to the ancient Greek gods?It's about the existence of God, not what God is. And as I've done now for a long time, I've tried to explain that existence isn't such a straightforward thing as it is to a physicalist / materialist. — ssu
You're the lion who ranges up and down raging against the pointy-headed ones on these topics, and I among those who cringe in awe at the sheer fire-power of your arguments and the invective in which they're clothed. 17-inch, triple-barreled battle-ship salvos against which little can stand. — tim wood
But I've never noted a comment (indeed, avoidance if called to characterize it) from you on the efficacy - the practical utility - (whether or not at all times well-used or employed) of ideas associated with so-called knowledge of g/G - even if the "knowledge" is just no knowledge at all and arguably cannot be. — tim wood
Perhaps you hold that whatever the virtues and benefits of believing - e.g., "We believe...". - are so much better got by other means that the baby of religion is not really distinguishable from its bathwater, and so out with it all. Yes? But what might those other methods be, especially granted that human kind, if it's reason you have in mind, does not work entirely, or entirely well, on that basis? — tim wood
↪180 Proof :ok:
What about family resemblance? Does it not afford an opportunity for export/import of words from one language game to another to allow meaningful interpretation of one game in terms of another? — TheMadFool
Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism purport to be views about the same thing though: God. If they’re talking about different conceptions of God, then someone could simultaneously be a theist and an atheist, a gnostic and an agnostic, all of them at the same time in different senses. Before one can say which of these positions one takes on the existence of “God”, one had to decide what “God” means. — Pfhorrest
I don't see Agnosticism as a cop-out, but as a Conditional & Complementary belief, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. My general philosophy is summed-up in the BothAnd Principle*1.The OP"s got a point, though. I've always felt rather smug and superior calling myself agnostic. But he's right - it is a bit of a cop-out. It allows supernatural explanation. — Chris Hughes
The OP"s got a point, though. I've always felt rather smug and superior calling myself agnostic. But he's right - it is a bit of a cop-out. It allows supernatural explanation.
As per Kant: g/G as a regulatory idea? Unneeded, I think, a solution looking for a problem; — 180 Proof
Sure, I agree with Kierkegaard, that to be human (i.e. "thrown") is always to leap, but into complexity (& perplexity, or inquiry) rather than mystery (& anxiety, or glossolalia), ...
... i.e. bricoleuring à la Neurath's boat. A principle of courage (& point of honor): It's Always Better To Know That We Don't Know Than To Not Know That We Don't Know And Yet Believe We Do. — 180 Proof
What science is hinting at is that something, or someone, appears to have a hand in designing the cosmos as we know it, in order for life to exist. — Gnomon
.I don't see that as a smug position - though humans can be smug about just about anything - but tending more likely towards an epistemologically humble or at least cautious position
How rude! Give the man a chance! He's got his own website and everything!Gnomon... stupidity... ignorance... nonsense
I'm sorry my wording offends you. So perhaps I should disclaim. I said that Science (Big Bang, Information Theory, Quantum Theory, etc) "hints" at design. In fact, that's why Astronomer Fred Hoyle scoffed at the radical notion that the universe had a beginning, which to him implied (hint, hint) a creation event --- which tried his patience no end --- so he coined an absurd term to describe it : "Big Bang".This tries my patience almost beyond endurance. Science looks for causes (in the most modern and scientific sense of "cause," the which by traditional and ordinary usage is in effect not anything understood by "cause"). — tim wood
Yes. For me, as an Agnostic Deist, the First Cause of our world is like a Black Box. I can see what came out of it, but I don't know what's inside. So, beyond labeling by its apparent function, world creation, I make no further claims about the mysterious Jack-in-the-Box. I am more concerned with the implications of creation in reality, than in the unknown "Creator" --- which I also call "G*D" for purposes of communication.agnosticism is more to do with the concept of knowledge than it is a deity really. — Mark Dennis
I have seen this stated. But again, I don't think it is necessary, especially in the case where one notices that knowledge changes over time and some things that are ruled out have turned out to be the case. I am sure some agnostics are smug. I don't think it necessarily follows from their beliefs (which are epistemological, at least in the main on this issue).The agnostic's facade of humility and caution conceals a smug superiority: you fools believe that God exists, or doesn't exist; I'm above all that. Mind you, as smartarse Nosferatu annoyingly points out, agnostics have to believe in the possibility of God. — Chris Hughes
The agnostic's facade of humility and caution conceals a smug superiority — Chris Hughes
In my myth of Intelligent Evolution, the design intent is implemented via a process of gradual construction, not an act of instant magic. That's why I imagine the hypothetical Creator as a Programmer. Yes, the First Cause is outside of evolution. The process is directed like a computer program from the bottom-up, via logical rules and initial conditions. And the ultimate output is specified only in general terms. So I assume the journey is more important than the destination. Perhaps G*D is playing a video game. :smile:Is your understanding of "design" "intelligent Evolution"? What would intelligent evolution be, as distinct from just plain evolution? In evolution (as I understand it) things evolve. Are you positing something outside of evolution - that does not evolve - that directs in some way the progress of evolution? And, if that were the case, then how could you call it evolution? — tim wood
May I ask how you establish and navigate the boundary between fanciful and actual? You already have the fanciful side, and more power to you! But try to move it to the actual and, you know, there are difficulties with that. You can absolutely presuppose your First Cause and create any apologetics you like for it, but that merely establishes your ideas as beliefs. In fact seemingly a re-expression of old beliefs in terms more suited to modern technology, although whether better or more durably or more persuasively or acceptably open questions.That's why I imagine the hypothetical Creator as a Programmer. Yes, the First Cause is outside of evolution. — Gnomon
Lol. (Not enough jokes on here!)The important thing is, you've found a way to feel superior to even them. :wink: (Seriously it's just a joke..)
I navigate the rocky shoals between evidence and speculation, between fact & faith, in the same way physicists do with such far-out notions as Dark Matter. They logically infer the existence of some undetectable locus of gravity, but so far have found no hard evidence for their hypothetical WIMPS. They know what Dark Matter does, but they still don't know what it is.May I ask how you establish and navigate the boundary between fanciful and actual? You already have the fanciful side, and more power to you! But try to move it to the actual and, you know, there are difficulties with that. . . .Or simply own them as beliefs — tim wood
There are two ways of thinking something is possible.
1) Given the nature of the universe and what I know about it, it is possible X happened or exists. I see know that the basic ground for such a thing is there. Whether it does exist or did happen is contingent.
2) Given that I am a limited being with limited knowledge, I cannot rule out that X happened or exists.
These are very different types of claims. In fact the second is much more an acknowledgment of limitation rather than a claim about what is.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.