I think it can be an advantage, even, especially if you are good at something or have the potential to be. If the goal is never to make a mistake, then it's a problem. But if you commit to a hypothesis or theory or belief, it allows you to move forward. If you are detective and when you think someone is guilty or withholding information, for examples, and, yes, are wrong once in a while, it still can make you a better police that you trust your intuition and are certain. Of course it can make for a bad detective also. If we shift to tying shoelaces, I am certain each time that I will manage. Of course, over my lifetime I may fumble it and mess up, once in a great while. But I lose nothing thinking I will do it right every time, unless my ego leads me deny I didn't manage and I walk outside and trip.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, — Yohan
Justifiable action is predicated on certainty. — Possibility
Some of us just hold ourselves (and/or others) to a more rational standard. — Possibility
Agnostic are mute because they're too intelkectually lazy to push back on dogmatic religious "beliefs" or "practices", deluding themselves that they inhabit some "neutral ground" between demonstrably true claims & demonstrably untrue claims. — 180 Proof
I think it depends on what facets of the work we are talking about. Clearly the better scientists are not going to assume they don't need to do the research. And the better detectives will of cource be looking ofr evidence to support their intuitions and yes, both will have an eye out for false assumptions. But I think they will also have great confidence in their intuitive skills, especially those that focus on them. And there are portions of the process of both groups that rely more on intuition than rational analysis. Any skilled detective or scientist will be good at both types of processes. And while many of them will be officially humble, at least in many contexts, my guess is that most in private or in themselves have a great deal of confidence in their intuitive abilities. And that this is helpful not harmful for them. That's my intuition and yes, I see you have a different intuition.I think if you interviewed the best detectives, scientists, whatever, that they would be people that while trusting their intuitions, are also humble and skeptical of their abilities, which would be one of the reasons they have gotten so good. — Yohan
darthbarracuda Big whup. You can barely hear us cursing the darkness over the cacophonous preaching of "thoughts and prayers" or prophetic glossolalia of religious huckers (and their mind-sheered flocks) would plunge the world back into if they could reimpose the Dark Ages unopposed. — 180 Proof
You can be an agnostic about the existence of God while also believing that, if God exists, it isn't Yahweh or Allah. — darthbarracuda
The irony is that believing any of your actions are based on a justification schema of certainty is completely irrational. — Kenosha Kid
Agnostic are mute because they're too intellectually lazy to push back against dogmatic religious "beliefs" or "practices", deluding themselves that they inhabit some "neutral ground" between demonstrably true claims & demonstrably untrue claims. — 180 Proof
Agnostics ARE atheists. An agnostic doesnt believe there is a god, thats what defines atheism. The two terms are not even positions on the same thing. Agnosticism isnt a position in whether god exists or not, it is a position on what can be known about god.
Thus one can be an atheists agnostic.
Being against religion or the idea of god is not atheism, it is anti-theism. Many atheists are anti-theists and because of that people think of atheism as anti-theism but its not. — DingoJones
I agree that the two terms are not positions on the same thing, and that some agnostics are atheists, but not all. I also understand that many atheists are not anti-theists, and don’t wished to be tarred with the same brush. If I have made this assumption, then it was not my intention. I think I have referred to ‘atheists who...’ to make this distinction, only becau — Possibility
As an agnostic, I do believe that ‘God’ is a suitable placeholder for a relational aspect of existence beyond knowledge. I believe this because I want to, because it makes sense in my affected experience. Can I then call myself an atheist? — Possibility
I believe that we relate to ‘God’ differently from different levels of awareness. But my understanding of this aspect doesn’t fit with the theist position, because I disagree that ‘God’ is a necessary being. Can I then call myself a theist? — Possibility
Understood, I wasnt taking offence, just illustrating some distinctions I find useful. I actually am an anti-theist atheist but Im open minded to change either of those positions. I’m not attached much to the positions I hold. Most of them anyway. — DingoJones
Don’t you find that using “god” as a placeholder carries a lot of baggage with it? It just seems easier to call it “existence beyond knowledge”, or “wonder” or “mystery” etc.
Anyway, I would probably call that atheism. You don’t believe in god but call existence beyond knowledge god, a theistic term for something non-theistic. — DingoJones
But this way, we're attacking the theists' constitutionally given freedom of religion.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. — Tom Storm
When I strip that ‘baggage’ of association with any particular religion, it isn’t all that cumbersome. The placeholder is a way of connecting phenomenal experience through language. I suppose my use of ‘God’ fits more clearly with the discussions here. I find your suggested terms are more specific than simply using ‘God’ in inverted commas. When I talk about ‘God’, I don’t just mean ‘wonder’ or ‘mystery’ - these are different ways we can relate. And I don’t think that ‘existence beyond knowledge’ is non-theistic - I think most theists would relate to this as an aspect of their god. — Possibility
I believe that the phenomenal experience I refer to as ‘God’ and what most people are talking about when they talk about a theistic god all refer to the same relation, they’re just describing a limited perspective of it. That’s not to say my own perspective is not also limited, but I won’t pretend I can accurately describe what I’m relating to. ‘The Tao that we speak of is not the eternal Tao’. It’s like an event horizon.
As to your question about my statement: “I believe that we relate to ‘God’ differently from different levels of awareness.” By levels of awareness, I’m referring to dimensional awareness: our relation to ‘God’ is qualitatively different when we understand ourselves as physical matter (to the act of an eternal Creator), as a living creature (to the concept of an all-powerful Being), as a socio-cultural being (to the ideal of a caring, all-knowing Father) or as a reasoning mind (to the pure relation of goodness, or Love itself). I’ve found that in reading the bible, for instance, it’s possible to follow this progressively developing awareness of ‘self’ in relation to ‘God’, regardless whether or not we believe anything that’s written (it’s all opinion and here-say, after all). It seems obvious to me, then, that the developing Old Testament concept of an all-powerful Being would appear petty and uncaring to a reasoning mind. — Possibility
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.