:up:

How can faith be anything but the excuse you give for believing when you don't have a good reason? — Tom Storm

I think there are two reasons one might believe. The first is intellectual and in my opinion not a good reason to believe. It is, however, the reason we often find being argued - the necessity of a first cause or designer. The second is emotional, and although not based on reason, is reasonable, if one is led to believe because in some way it resonates with them, gives them a sense of security, or meaning and purpose. Practical consequences, however, may not always be reasonable when faith is used as a substitute for good judgment.

:up:

A Gnostic idea? Dystheism? or ...

How can faith be anything but the excuse you give for believing when you don't have a good reason? — Tom Storm

Once reason understands the limitation of its own capability, it then realises that possible options available is either jumping into the abyss of faith, or be atheist.

possible options available is either jumping into the abyss of faith, or be atheist — Corvus

doesn't logically follow from

Once reason understands the limitation of its own capability — Corvus

In fact, the opposite follows: if you understand the limitations of reason, you have good reason to doubt.

When the doubting has exhausted, one will decide either to keep doubting or become an atheist? Reasoning itself alone, will not cause someone to decide or act, but it will be the basis of the decision or action depending on their will. All it can do is, "realising".

When the doubting has exhausted, one will decide either to keep doubting or become an atheist? Reasoning itself alone, will not cause someone to decide or act, but it will be the basis of the decision or action depending on their will. All it can do is, "realising". — Corvus

I think most things should remain in doubt. I feel 99.999999999999% confident that no intelligent deity created mankind or the universe (but 100% confident that the previous percentage I wrote was just made up). This is good enough for action. Action is predicated on certainty: confidence is sufficient.

I concur.

Atheist are on their own, that is a tough position to be. Agnostics are in the dark, but have hopes. Theist are having it all too easy - all the answers are in God.

Do you rule out a rotting pile of spaghetti in another dimension? — Gregory

The question is why one would concern themselves with such things that are not knowable.

Most of these opinions and beliefs don't even have a practical purpose, other than satisfying the mind with answers however uncertain they may be.

My current reasoning suggests to me that there are four options:
I know
I don't know
I don't know and I suspect or have a guess
I don't know and suspect to the point of being convinced

My question is when is it justified to go from suspecting or having a good guess to actually being convinced something is true without actually knowing it is for a fact.

to me it seems more reasonable to never be convinced until one knows for certain.

Edited to shorten and add better punctuation.

WEre you just thinking about belief in God or would you apply this to all beliefs?
I work with a vast range of beliefs that I am convinced enough to make decisions based on, decisions that affect me and others. But I am not certain. There is a wide range of levels of certainty. And, for example, beliefs that seem unlikely to hurt someone either way, I give much more slack with. But have beliefs about individual people, people in general, politics, psychology, what it is that helps and hurts other people and much much more. And much of this is not based on science say, though some of can be influenced and perhaps slightly justified via science. I don't see a problem with this or how it can be avoided.

I want to say all beliefs. I think there's only so many options for any proposition.
I prefer to think levels of suspicion. Certainty I consider an absolute. I'm certain or I'm not. I can't be kind of certain, or 99% certain. If I have doubt, any at all, I am 100% NOT certain.
I would guess most of us have had an experience of thinking we were certain or at least totally convinced something was true and then found out we were wrong, so then on reflection we can't really say that we were whatever percent certain, rather we had 0% certainty and only a very convincing degree of suspicion of a truth.
I don't think certainty is necessary to make decisions, which I guess we agree on. I think it is very hard to avoid the illusion of being certain as well. I'm not sure if I would say such is a problem, actually I think problems are just subjective judgment on a neutral reality, but I do think it's an error of judgment and I'm trying to avoid it to the best of my ability.
I agree that some beliefs maybe more important to take the time to critically examine than others.
When it comes to philosophy I like to try to dig to the root issue and I think how does one know is pretty close if not to the root of philosophy while a lot of other questions are skimming the surface until that question is answered.

I agree. The problem as I see it is this notion that there is an absolute divine authority that has determined all matters ethical, and that by belief this authority becomes one's own.

Some Atheists operate on the basis that harmful ideas harm human beings. All myths of the Enlightenment aside, the reality is right now laws and society all over the world are being changed by religious folk with disproportionate power.

I have no interest in getting into a ceaseless slanging match on this and wish you well. Maybe just be open to considering that atheism is not necessarily the dysfunctional reaction you seem to think it is. And there's no need to call an agnostic stupid if they don't conform to your definition of the term. Feel free to have the last word. :pray: — Tom Storm

Sure, atheists and most everyone else probably believe that harmful ideas harm human beings. And some religious ideas are unarguably harmful, and those ideas are arguably always fundamentalistic ideas, in contexts where faith has become ideology, where faith has been conflated with knowledge.

Can you give me any examples of where and what "laws and society all over the world are being changed by religious folk with disproportionate power" other than in the case of theocratic societies?

Also, I don't see this as a slanging match but a discussion being held (at least from my side) in good faith, on account of what seem to be honest disagreements. Surly you can countenance my disagreement without imputing bad intent on my part?

I said agnostics are stupid only if they don't recognize the distinction between faith and knowledge, just as I have said fundamentalist religious believers are stupid for the same reason. I have also acknowledged that it is not stupid to argue against fundamentalism in all its forms (although, it may be a waste of time since such arguments often fall on deaf eras).

I'm not merely concerned with having the last word, either.

I'm not merely concerned with having the last word, either. — Janus

Never said you were. It was just an offer since I wanted to move on.

Surly you can countenance my disagreement without imputing bad intent on my part? — Janus

Why be defensive? I have not said (or indeed concluded) anything about your motivations here, I said 'slanging match' - which implies we both do the 'slanging'. It's just a term. I'm not into lengthy back and forth arguments, that's all. They become tedious, as I fear this is becoming.

I said agnostics are stupid only if they don't recognize the distinction between faith and knowledge, just as I have said fundamentalist religious believers are stupid for the same reason. I have also acknowledged that it is not stupid to argue against fundamentalism in all its forms (although, it may be a waste of time since such arguments often fall on deaf eras). — Janus

Thanks for the clarification. Given the predominance of fundamentalism all over the world - their huge influence in American politics (Trump/High Court/changes to laws and views about gays and trans and teaching evolution and threats to Roe versus Wade) I would say atheists have a lot of work to do in this space.

And yes I would count theocracies all over the world. Why would I not? You can't rule out state fundamentalism it seems to be an inevitable result of theism. These guys still believe in killing non-virgin brides and apostates and gay and trans people. And that's just some of it. Saudi Arabia, a key ally, still regularly executes gay people to say nothing of other vile practices.

We have an enthusiastic fundamentalist as Prime Minister here - do you think he doesn't see the world through that narrow lens? Foreign policy and legislation? Could that be why he isn't taking action on climate change? (This is rhetorical, I am not expecting an answer)

I said agnostics are stupid only if they don't recognize the distinction between faith and knowledge, — Janus

Partly yes. But you said they were pretty stupid for arguing against Christianity/Islam - a response to my comment. Agnostics I've known are often very critical of the truth claims and practices of religions.

The principle is simple. It is one thing to say you don't know if any kind of deity exists or not. It's another thing entirely (as Hitchens might say) to be neutral on specific claims made regarding a specific deity's views about morality; who you should sleep with and in what position; what country should win the war; what you should eat; what days you can work on; what counts as knowledge, the status of women; etc. Agnosticism doesn't have to make one a eunuch. There is a lot of harmful religious practice (not all of it fundamentalist) that demands a response even from the agnostic.

The principle is simple. It is one thing to say you don't know if any kind of deity exists or not. It's another thing entirely (as Hitchens might say) to be neutral on specific claims made regarding a specific deity's views about morality; who you should sleep with and in what position; what country should win the war; what you should eat; what days you can work on; what counts as knowledge, the status of women; etc. Agnosticism doesn't have to make one a eunuch. There is a lot of harmful religious practice (not all of it fundamentalist) that demands a response even from the agnostic. — Tom Storm

:up:

as much as I think agnosticism is a “good” position it for one is not the default position and is give theism too much of a position for me, if u wanna talk about this more in depth you can add my discord!

The question is why one would concern themselves with such things that are not knowable. — Tzeentch

In a desperate quest for safety and meaning.

The issue is that beliefs cause harm to others. When, for instance Christians seek to change legislation - eg, abortion law, euthanasia, creation science in schools, climate science denial - you name it - and when they are supporting political candidates, they are justifying these high impact changes on the basis of an unproven entity. — Tom Storm

It seems more likely to me that the religious references to or implications of God are merely part of a political strategy, and not a genuine expression of belief. This strategy is fuelled by the constitutional freedom of religion and the constitutional demand for respect for religion. The religious have here an ace that the non-religious don't have. If you oppose what they say, they can accuse you of denying them their constitutional freedom of religion. This is how they can silence you, which was their goal all along. This is how the secular constitution is shooting secular people in the foot -- or more like, in the head.

Indeed. How can faith be anything but the excuse you give for believing when you don't have a good reason? What can you not justify using an appeal to faith? It seems very weak to me. — Tom Storm

Don't forget that many people conflate faith, belief, and knowledge; they have little or no sense of perspective, subjectivity, or of the dichotomy of facts vs. opinions. (This is also why scientism can flourish among secular people, as witnessed in the covid vaccine hysteria.)
They have no training in criticial thinking (or at least none that would stick.) They reason in an entirely different way than someone who has had some of such training.

I still can't quite understand what the idea of god is for except as a debating subject.

That's because you're not pugilistic enough. The idea of God has proven to be a very effective tool for fucking with people's minds, and thus render them silent, incompetent, or irrelevant.

The counter is that for practical purposes agnosticism and atheism have the same outcome.
— Banno

Not true; an agnostic is not going to waste time arguing against theists. — Janus

Not from what I've seen. At least on internet forums, I've seen plenty of aggressive agnostics trying to fight it out both with theists as well as atheists.

I had absolutely zero religious training and I'm not even slightly inclined to atheism. My sense of incredulity at the magnificent complexity of the universe only reduces that further. — Pantagruel

But you're not a theist in any actual, established religious sense of the word. You couldn't go to a particular church, join the religious community there, and function well as a member, could you?

I think the Atheist has specific reasons for disbelieving in god. Probably some deep psychological trauma where they feel they were let down and abandoned. — Pantagruel

Oh? And this means that they should first seek psychiatric help, and once they are cured of their trauma, only then proceed with their religious explorations?

They become tedious, as I fear this is becoming. — Tom Storm

No one is forcing you to particiapte.

I said agnostics are stupid only if they don't recognize the distinction between faith and knowledge, — Janus


Partly yes. But you said they were pretty stupid for arguing against Christianity/Islam - a response to my comment. Agnostics I've known are often very critical of the truth claims and practices of religions. — Tom Storm

I don't remember saying anything about Islam or specifically about arguing against Christianity. Perhaps you can cite what I wrote? Also I said it was fine ( not stupid) for agnostics to be critical of the truth claims and (harmful) practices of religions.

It would benefit the discussion if you read what I actually wrote, but if you want to cease discussing these issues that's fine with me too.

Not from what I've seen. At least on internet forums, I've seen plenty of aggressive agnostics trying to fight it out both with theists as well as atheists. — baker

Sure, but are they not fighting against unwarranted truth claims from both sides, a practice I have already acknowledged and agreed with?

It would benefit the discussion if you read what I actually wrote, — Janus

I feel like I should be saying this to you given your responses. No matter. Maybe we can exchange views on something else later. All the best.

The religious have here an ace that the non-religious don't have. If you oppose what they say, they can accuse you of denying them their constitutional freedom of religion. This is how they can silence you, which was their goal all along. — baker

I think this defiantly happens. Good point.

Not from what I've seen. At least on internet forums, I've seen plenty of aggressive agnostics trying to fight it out both with theists as well as atheists. — baker

Yep. This is a key point. Agnosticism is not necessarily a neutral position - it can be just as combative and critical of religion and god beliefs, not to mention atheism. And atheists are far from harmonious with each other.

Likewise.

Agnosticism? It's lazy, even stupid.

Theist: "I suck on a cosmic lollipop."

Atheist: "I don't suck on a cosmic lollipop (maybe because cosmic lollipops are imaginary)."

Agnostic: "I don't know whether any cosmic lollipop is real or imaginary (so I don't know whether I should suck on it or not)." :roll:

I think most things should remain in doubt. I feel 99.999999999999% confident that no intelligent deity created mankind or the universe (but 100% confident that the previous percentage I wrote was just made up). This is good enough for action. Action is predicated on certainty: confidence is sufficient. — Kenosha Kid

Justifiable action is predicated on certainty. Affected belief is sufficient for action. Some of us just hold ourselves (and/or others) to a more rational standard.

Agnosticism? It's lazy, even stupid.

Theist: "I suck on a cosmic lollipop."

Atheist: "I don't suck on a cosmic lollipop (maybe because cosmic lollipops are imaginary)."

Agnostic: "I don't know whether I suck or I don't suck on a (real? imaginary?) cosmic lollipop." — 180 Proof

The agnostic acknowledges what you’ve alluded to by adding ‘maybe’ to the atheist position: that you cannot know whether ‘cosmic lollipops’ are imaginary or real. The atheist is adamantly refusing to suck on any ‘cosmic lollipop’, real or imaginary. The theist has chosen to happily suck on what they believe is the closest thing to what a ‘cosmic lollipop’ might be. The agnostic thinks you’re both a little loopy, carrying on about ‘cosmic lollipops’ as if ‘to suck or not to suck’ on something that may or may not even be real is an important, life-altering decision, and would rather just get back to it.

Yep. This is a key point. Agnosticism is not necessarily a neutral position - it can be just as combative and critical of religion and god beliefs, not to mention atheism. And atheists are far from harmonious with each other. — Tom Storm

I would say that agnostics can be just as combative towards and critical of claims to logical justification, objective truth or certainty one way or the other. But I don’t find them so critical of beliefs as such - or lack of belief. Ignorance, actions and attitudes maybe, but not beliefs. I think this is an important distinction to make for agnostics. It can be easy to get lost in the binary form of a debate, though. Just because I’m critical of your perspective, doesn’t mean I’m diametrically opposed to it. It’s hard to recognise this when you feel so certain. And it’s equally difficult to concede this when someone claims such certainty.

Ignorance, actions and attitudes maybe, but not beliefs. — Possibility

Hmm - I would say that ignorance, actions and attitudes are derived from the beliefs; they are enmeshed. For instance:

"Gay people are going to hell - they are an abomination."
"Climate change isn't important; God will provide."
"We need to change the laws to protect the Christian worldview."
"Heretics and apostates should be jailed or killed."

The agnostics I know would vocally challenge these relatively common religious views of earnest theists. If we wish to substantively address ignorance, actions and attitudes, we need to challenge belief in literalist readings of holy books or the notion that God's will is known.