Now that is a metaphysical question. — Wayfarer

And that is a paradigmatic non-answer.

Apparently that whereof we cannot speak is not doing it's proper job in producing an appropriate silence.

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

What god(s) are these agnostics agnostic about? Are they agnostic when it comes to the ancient Greek gods?

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.

"There is something pagan in me that I cannot shake off. In short, I deny nothing, but doubt everything."
~George Byron

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

A rational big cat, I hope.

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

As per Kant: g/G as a regulatory idea? Unneeded, I think, a solution looking for a problem; or just a(n anti-anxiety) placebo-fetish for magical thinkers. Many 'ideas' with negative truth-value (e.g. "all you need is love") , or without truth-value (e.g. "rubber soulmating" :joke: ), have some practical utility; they pale in comparison, however, to 'ideas' with positive truth-value which have practical utility (e.g. love risks betrayal or hurt), and even those without practical utility (e.g. the chemical formula for love: C8H11NO2+C10H12N2O+C43H66N12O12S2 dopamine, seratonin, oxytocin).****

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

The least maladaptive basis, except for all others tried so far, seems: We know ... rather than merely believing.

"I do not want to found anything on the incomprehensible. I want to know whether I can live with what I know and with that alone. ~Albert Camus

"I don’t want to believe, I want to know. ~Carl Sagan

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), ...

“We have to continually be jumping off cliffs and developing our wings on the way down.” ~Kurt Vonnegut

... 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.

Sapere aude!

:death: :flower:



****(Btw, no Beatles-fans were harmed, I hope, in the making of these examples. :victory:&♡)

↪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

No ... I suppose there are cases - examples? - but in the main I don't think so. The notion of 'family resemblance' is, as I recall, simply a(nother) reminder that words have as many disparate meanings as they have discrete uses, or distinct contexts of usage; that is, 'definitions' are stipulative & circumstantial (i.e. conventions) and not essentialist (i.e. natural kinds or rigid designators).

Its really quite simple !
On a pragmatic basis that 'existence of anything' is a concept which stands or falls of the basis of its utility to humans, then 'God exist' for theists who have a use for it, and 'does not exist' for atheists who do not.. On that basis, the term 'agnostic', at best means 'undecided as to the utility for them of the God concept', and at worst, 'sitting on the fence'.
But ontological and epistemological 'language games' will no doubt continue ad nauseam !

:smirk:

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

My only quibble with this, Pfhorrest, is that atheism, as I understand it, is about Theism, or claims about (i.e. predications of) g/G, and not about g/G itself, whereby critical rejection or negation pertains narrowly to incoherent or false theistic concepts and not expansively to all nontheistic concepts. In this regard, given that Atheism is a 2nd order critique of Theism (i.e. 1st order statements about g/G), a/gnosticism with respect to theistic g/G makes no sense where Theism is shown, at best, to make no sense. Yeah, I'm aware this interpretation of Atheism is non-standard, but nonetheless I find it indispensable for avoiding these positions being conflated, or reduced to falsely equivalent antithetical beliefs when, in effect, Theism [ object ] concerns g/G whereas Atheism [ meta ] concerns claims entailed, or presupposed, by Theism.

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

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.

From the evidence so-far produced by Science, I have inferred that the Big Bang, Physical Laws, and Initial Conditions were not accidental, but were the Direct Effect of some First Cause. Since that Causal Agent logically existed prior to the Big Bang, it is also beyond the scope of space-time Nature as we know it : hence, Super-Natural. But since I have no direct knowledge of anything supernatural, I must limit my belief in the necessary existence of the Prime Mover with a dose of doubt appropriate to the magnitude of the question.

Hence, I believe there must be some kind of Creator, but my knowledge is limited to observation of the Creation, and is subject to being mis-interpreted. So, while I am literally an A-Theist regarding the humanoid deity of world religions, I must remain A-Gnostic regarding any specific characteristics of the First Cause, beyond the functional requirements of the Philosopher's God of Deism*2.


*1 BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

*2 Conditional belief in Deity :
"However, at this point in time, science is pointing toward a designer / creator behind the universe / life. The complexity of the DNA code is one example. The fine-tuning of the universe’s cosmological constants is another. 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. While the same science points toward a Big Bang event, what is unknown is what caused the Big to go Bang.

Physics states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Unless you suspend the laws of physics, then what equal force in a “nonexistent universe” could possibly have caused the Big Bang? Did something come from nothing, or, did a transcendent force (God), that we do not yet comprehend, serve as the catalyst when supposedly nothing else existed?

In the meantime, deists are firmly planted in their belief, and with good reason!"
Excerpt from Quora post by Christopher Finch : https://www.quora.com/profile/Christopher-Finch-5

Thing is, despite the superficial linguistic felicity, agnostics aren't opposed to gnostics - they're opposed to theists, and, to a lesser extent, atheists, in that theists (and, some say, atheists) believe, whereas agnostics don't. The (semi-)belief of atheists denies supernatural explanation. The non-belief of agnostics allows the possibility of supernatural belief. Those who claim reason should perhaps close that loophole. On reflection, I'll continue to call myself agnostic - I admit the possibility of the supernatural. However, I'm grateful to the OP for making me think about it. Thanks!

There's not many that worship Greek gods anymore, so I don't understand your point. Here we typically refer to God of our religion (Christianity, that is), but I do assume you can find agnostics in India, Japan or Turkey etc.

It allows that something that is called supernatural might exist. It also allows, in some versions of agnosticism, that some things/phenomena currently not verified, for example scienctifically, might be verified later. One might say it is open to the possibility that somethings considered not simply unreal but impossible to detect (supernatural) may, it turns out, be real (natural) and detectable. 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.

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.

It is essentially theological fence-sitting. But it is a form of dogma. An agnostic must first believe, without evidence, that a god is possible before he reserves judgement on whether a god exists.

...only on a 'naive realistic' view of 'existence'. If 'existence' is relative to observers, 'belief' is irrelevant.

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

Three sorts of knowledge: 1) so-called self-evident and indubitable that cannot be doubted: let's call it Cartesian. 2) absolute (for lack of a better term): that for which the possibilities are all lexical, but one and one only is possible. 3) necessary: that which grounds the thinking about a subject matter, and thus, as knowledge, absolutely presupposed (in the thinking that absolutely presupposes it).

Added, a principle of courage, which amounts to a decision. And the decision itself always and necessarily about matters that are contingent and operating within possibilities that could be or might not be. (For if it's so, then it's not a decision but assent that's called for.)

For a decision to be meaningful, it must be based in something, or if based in nothing, foolish. It involves reasoning (or it be unreasonable) as process, and the process must have some object to be reasonable about: for present purpose let's call that knowledge, either understood as above or in some other way that you can add.

The question concerned g/G as a regulative idea. That is, not knowledge of as in senses 1) and 2) above, but rather in the third sense, and we may even regard that third sense, in addition, in a rhetorical sense of the point being granted for the sake of argument, or in this case, for value and utility. It seems, then, decision that is neither foolish nor irrational is bent back toward knowledge of some kind, which if not Cartesian or absolute must be necessary, and in which latter sense may be called a regulatory idea - bent back if not to Kant exactly, then Kant pretty close. You just didn't know, until now, what you were doing.

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

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"). Science is not interested in anthropomorphizing causes - indeed, in its modern sense, causes cannot be anthropomorpized. Science certainly does not side-slip from something to some someone. There is no "hand." And if you wish to use a word like "design," if you're honest you will have to spend so much time and effort qualifying it that you might well forgo its use.

And never would science rest on a positive concept of God because there is always the question of the provenance of God. Which in effect says that God can not ever be, God. This, then is an exercise in stupidity informed by ignorance

You put this nonsense up without disclaimer. The question, what does that make you?

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

.
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.

Gnomon... stupidity... ignorance... nonsense

How rude! Give the man a chance! He's got his own website and everything!

He has every chance. I merely comment on what he presented. It appears to be you that applied that to him!

Ooooh!

Except; agnosticism is more to do with the concept of knowledge than it is a deity really.

For example; I am agnostic toward the belief in the physical phenomenon of White holes. I could say that until evidence mounts that white holes do in fact exist; I believe Dark Star Theory to be the more likely theory as this theory factors in Dark matter and Dark energy and can potentially explain the existence of some or all black holes as the Newtonian opposite force of what we call Stars. The missing equal and opposite reacrion.

However without veering too far away from the discussion; I'd say that agnosticism is just putting your beliefs in a box so no one can know, including yourself if the beliefs are dead or alive. So think of God like Schroedingers cat whenver someone says they are agnostic. Their beliefs are just in a box and we don't known if they are alive or dead. They are in a superposition.

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

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".

Since then, Atheists have come to terms with the fact that space-time seems to have suddenly appeared from out of nowhere, and have looked for alternative explanations, such as an un-caused eternal Multiverse, for which they have no evidence. Since the origin of the Singularity is logically prior to the Bang, its "cause", as you pointed out, cannot be a physical action of the sort that scientists normally look for. Instead, it must be a metaphysical First Cause as postulated by Philosophers over the ages.

Regarding signs of "Design", you may be thinking of instantaneous creation as in the Myth of Genesis. But my personal myth is of gradual "Intelligent Evolution" instead of "Intelligent Design". I can go into much deeper detail, if your patience has any elasticity remaining. :smile:

agnosticism is more to do with the concept of knowledge than it is a deity really. — Mark Dennis

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.

A gracious reply, points to you! 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?

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

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).

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.

The agnostic's facade of humility and caution conceals a smug superiority — Chris Hughes

The important thing is, you've found a way to feel superior to even them. :wink:

(Seriously it's just a joke, and not even an original one, so more like an xkcd reference really...).

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

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:

You ask a lot of questions. I have a lot of answers. Here's just a sampler :

Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming

Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essays/Intelligent%20Evolution%20Essay_Prego_120106.pdf

The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

That's why I imagine the hypothetical Creator as a Programmer. Yes, the First Cause is outside of evolution. — Gnomon

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.

In short, First Cause? Prove it. Or at least try - put your ideas and beliefs "to the question." Or simply own them as beliefs and never mind actual. It all makes a decent story/myth, and you get points for that!

The important thing is, you've found a way to feel superior to even them. :wink: (Seriously it's just a joke..)

Lol. (Not enough jokes on here!)

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

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.

Likewise, Darwin proposed a detailed theory to explain the Origin of Species. But, to date, scientists have not observed the emergence of any new species. Which is to be expected, because speciation takes thousands of generations. Nevertheless, biologists have concluded that "nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution". That's a profession of faith.

Unfortunately, since my hypothetical First Cause is defined as outside the limits of space-time, I have no reason to expect to find any hard evidence to support my theory. I know what G*D does, but not what it is. Nevertheless, I have concluded that nothing in Reality makes sense, except in the light of Ideality. Which is the the axiom of Enformationism. That's my profession of (provisional) faith -- subject to new information of course. :smile:

PS___I also delineate the boundary between proven science and my unproven fantasy of creation by labeling it a Myth, which may be "true" metaphorically, if not literally.

Enformationism : a worldview or belief system grounded on the assumption that Information, rather than Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be a successor to the 19th century paradigm of Materialism, and to the ancient philosophy of Spiritualism.

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.

But by the same token the agnostic should also remain agnostic about his agnosticism. Given that I am a limited being with limited knowledge I cannot rule out that we cannot know whether X happened or exists. Perhaps we can know.