Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 4:53 am
Well, that depends on the use to which the label is being summoned. If its purpose is to explain one's own disposition, then it's the strongest (i.e. most defensible) of the skeptical options. But if its purpose is to convince others what tho believe, then it's the weakest; because it doesn't tell them they have to deny the existence of anything at all.
I am using the word “strongest” in a practical sense specific to the three positions human personalities can assume re the question “Do we exist within a created thing?”
The purpose of doing so is not regarding belief but in accurately portraying Agnosticism as a means of by-passing (through explanation) the confusion most have in regarding Agnosticism as a sub-set of Atheism rather than understanding it as a position in its own right – alongside the positions of Theism and Materialism (commonly understood as “Atheism.”
Often true. But it's kind of hard to provide any rationale for Atheism if one doesn't also believe in Materalism, or Physicalism, CS Realism, or some such idea. So the ideas tend to kind of cling together. I suppose it might be possible to describe an Atheism that doesn't also require some such supposition, but it would be hard to do, I think. They're pretty much a matched pair.
But if you think maybe you can do it, that would be interesting.
And to "lack belief" in something that he either could know or should know is not any badge of honour, but rather just a confession
I can and am doing it. It isn’t about convincing anyone but using the opportunity to inject alternative information onto that mix.
I agree that Materialism is well-matched with those commonly calling themselves “Atheists” which is why I do not think it is a request designed to be derogatory to either “Atheists” or “Materialists”.
Because I think that Atheists should refer to themselves as Materialists so that it assists with the process of having Agnosticism accepted as a philosophical position alongside Materialism and Theism.
I do so, as an Agnostic who understands Agnosticism as an alternate position to assume from either Materialism or Theism.
Hmmm. I can't see any reason for adopting ANY belief that one has already permanently decided can be neither true nor false; so it seems to me that any agnostic has to be open to the possibility he's wrong to hold agnosticism.
You are not critiquing Agnosticism there. Agnosticism has no dogma re permanent belief because Agnostics recognise that there is not enough information to claim one way or the other that we do exist within a created thing.
Whomever makes such claims does so from either Theism or Materialism positions, not from the Agnostic Position.
That's pretty fair. But whereas the agnostic can wonder whether the Theist has "seen over the wall," he already has to realize that the Atheist cannot possibly have done so. And he can wonder whether or not he could, himself, see over that wall.
The only wall an Agnostic can see over is the one which Materialists and Theist have built between those positions.
This is (analogously) saying that the position of the Agnostic is on top the said wall, able to see into both sides (positions) without been affected by any belief claims (philosophy) and report one’s findings.
Re the wall first referred to, that is (primarily) to do with the question “Do we exist within a created thing?” and the battle between Materialists and Theists has created a wall between them, and one which an Agnostic can walk upon and view the goings-on involved with the battle being fought re the other positions.
No. I meant, "Can it be a product of nothing but blind faith or blind unfaith, the way Theism can sometimes be, and Atheism always is?
In that case My answer is “no”.
Agnosticism is focused upon the question (Do we exist within a created thing?) and not all Materialists are against the idea, but simply need more evidence before a decision can be made.
In that sense, they are assuming the Agnostic Position and might be seen as “Agnostic Materialists” a subset of Materialism (or “Atheism” as you and they like to refer to it (the position).
The same may apply to Theism where a Theist is not sure they exist within a created thing, although no examples spring to mind re that. It would appear to be a contradiction that if anyone calling themselves a Theist were unsure, they existed within a created thing but sure that there is a god to worship could be termed a contradiction in need of explaining itself.
Oh, I agree that's what agnosticism CAN do. I'm asking whether some agnostics can also go the other way, and refuse to be persuaded, even when the evidence is available. And I think they can.
Your thinking is based upon incorrect data re the commonly (between the two battling positions) accepted definition of an Agnostic.
The definition is incorrect, so the critique/feedback is also going to be incorrect.
Agnosticism cannot change because it is a Position.
Agnostics can change because they are human personalities.
Therefore, those human personalities who call themselves Agnostics and decide to “refuse to be persuaded even when the evidence is available” would not be that which they claim to be.
They would be either Materialists or Theist, depending on what data it was they were refusing to acknowledge.
I mean "saving from being recognized as inherently irrational," or "rescued from being exposed as a claim the Atheist can't back with the required evidence." It's that that Atheism cannot manage, I think. Both agnosticism and Theism can produce sufficient evidence, I think, to warrant their own positions, at least...whether or not they can produce sufficient evidence to close the whole case in their favour for everybody.
Yes, it needs more. And I think we can tell what it would be.
Atheism would have to say, "I lack belief in God, because I know He doesn't exist."
If Atheism was understood as Materialism the problem (confusion) is fixed (or at least beaten back into a recognisable shape) and Theists could adjust accordingly.
Materialist could say “I lack belief in assuming things about “God” while I look for evidence that we do or do not exist within a created thing.” But this would make them Agnostics.
Materialists current say “I lack belief that we exist within a created thing because the gods Theism offers as evidence do not align with the supposed “created thing” (the universe) being experienced.
This is viewed by Agnostics as an acceptable thing to assume re the position of Materialism.
I don't think so. If, for example, the whole idea of any God or gods were shown to be inherently irrational and self-contradictory, or were over powered by requisite evidence, I think we wouldn't even get to the question of what kind of God was being discussed.
And agnosticism would have to say something more like, "I lack believe in God because I personally have not seen evidence for God."
No. The primary question which then leads to God-concepts is “Do we exist in a created thing, and that is where Agnosticism springs off from.
Thus Agnosticism is better defined as a place where human personalities (who are Agnostic) say something more like “I do not know, because I am still processing the information (of the universe).
Note therein that the question of “God/gods” is secondary and cannot be sufficiently asked, let along answered…thus “I lack belief in ideas of God because I personally haven’t encountered any Theist (to date) whose ideas of God explain the universe (assuming it is a created thing.)
Secondary because it first has to be established that we do indeed exist within a created thing.
That's still only personal, though. "Show ME the evidence, and I will..." and so on. What I mean by being more than personal is if the position in question can tell other people what they ought to think, or merely serve as the holding position for the speaker alone.
So, for example, Atheism tries to tell people they shouldn't believe in God. Theism tries to tell them they should. Agnosticism, however, doesn't try to tell them anything at all; it only says, "I don't know..."
Not quite so.
Rather Agnostics point out that the information so far does not inform us beyond reasonable doubt (and this is the same for all human personalities regardless of which position they choose).
The best one can do (and an Agnostic does) is to acknowledge this matter of fact and when drawing on (or otherwise being informed by) Materialism or Theism information, the appropriate expression one could attach to Agnosticism is “ I don’t know because there is still not enough information in/by/through which to know”
Agnostics do not argue from belief(s).
Right. They argue they lack them. Except in the case of the obdurate agnostic I was talking about, the one who may decide not to believe anything, no matter how many arguments or how much evidence he/she becomes aware of. They have a belief in the universality and necessity of ignorance; and that would be another kind of belief.
No. It is never about belief but about information which proves to be correct.
If information is given which supports an idea that the universe is a created thing, it is added to the rest. Any information offered which cannot integrate with the information already integrated, is place to one side or completely taken off the table (not discussed because isn’t relevant) and any data proven true, is not believed to be true but known to be true.
Anything known to be true doesn’t change the position the Agnostic is in (Agnosticism), because known things are not considered the same as believed in things.
I'm not sure we can even relegate the suspicion that God exists merely to the subconscious. Many of us are quite conscious of it, even at the beginning. But let's say we can: I'm not sure that would tell us much, except that the subconscious was where that intuition was being universally installed. It wouldn't argue that the belief is false. It might even argue that some Greater Force was installing the intuition of God's existence in our subconscious minds.
I think that Agnosticism would agree with this if it were shown to be the case.
Aa a thought experiment, any Agnostic should be fine “going there” to investigate the concept further, as well as be able to integrate it with what is know as true.
Now, it might be different in your personal case, and I don't call doubt upon your claim that it was. Perhaps you were born into an ethos in which disregard for any questions about God was the general practice, or the people around you were Atheistic, or that you never personally found reasons to think about it: how would I know, really? So I don't guess.
It is best not to guess, I agree. I do not think there is any one way in which individual human personalities sort themselves out re the 3 positions available on the primary question being asked.
It might matter to you. I can't guess at it. But if it were the case that you were raised with strong anti-God beliefs, or even raised in a place where such issues were just routinely ignored, it's possible you would find, later in life, that you had trouble imagining what role God would play in cognition or in life. Having been raised to ignore God, one might imagine He couldn't possibly be an important issue, and might bury one's awareness of God in the subconscious instead of acting on it. That could happen, too.
Even if it were not the case (I don’t need you guessing and you don’t need that information) God is a secondary consideration to the primary. The cart rather than the horse (so to speak).
I have neither trouble thinking that we exist within a created thing, since the created thing has much information for me to examine.
I can take that information and then apply it to the question “If the Creation is like such and such” then is the creator expressing itself (as an image) through the creation?” and from that, form a “picture” of the most likely mindset/personality/ such a creator could be attributed with having.
Still, such a picture could be treated as “known” in relation to what is already known to be true, but not to the point of dogmatic belief, because data is still pouring in on all fronts.
As an Agnostic I find that all belief structures tend to be dogmatic, so actual belief is unnecessary and problematic when claimed to be necessary (regardless of whether the belief is based in Materialist or Theist Positions/held to be true by Materialist or Theists.
Yes, that's fair: suppress rather than expunge. I take your point.
Suppressing the idea one has to have beliefs/dogmatism is acceptable. Even that we can recognize we might intuit that God exists, than acknowledge where this intuition derives (the subconscious) we cannot fully depend upon said subconscious to be able to enlighten us further, but needn’t think that it couldn’t do so – because all that is being done re that (if such were done) is the wall of unconsciousness (representing the barrier between the consciousness of the human personality being aware of the goings on of the subconsciousness attached to that human personality) - is being dismantled.
We cannot make foregone conclusions as to the helpfulness of the subconscious but if one is to agree with the notion that “intuitions of God” spring from the subconscious, we would do well to at least give such a fair hearing.
Well, if you read Dawkins's own biography, he'll tell you that he became a Atheist at 17. At that age, he wasn't a biologist. He wasn't even a scholar. He was in high school. So I don't think it was a problem with physical evidence that compelled him to make his decision; more likely, youthful rebellion.
Even so, if you and I have agreed that he is confused about that and thinks of himself as an Agnostic, while leaning toward Materialism, he is probably a Materialist.
And if you and I do not agree with that, then you will continue to see him as an “Atheist” who resists (the gods of) Theism.
The reason I asked was because you use him as a standard and perhaps we (if) we disagree as to what his position really is, you might be taking his definition of Agnosticism over my own (assuming the two definitions are different which appear to be the case).
And that's right: one should not claim what one does not know. But one also should not insist on not knowing something one could know.
As an Agnostic, I do not insist on not knowing something I could know. If I have no access to any information, I can say I do not know that information but if that information is made available to me (either by my own searching for it or another showing me it) then I will attempt to get to know that information.
But we've got to be cautious not to let it become irrational and dishonest, if it should turn out to be the case that evidence exists, and we simply refuse to entertain any, because we've already made up our minds that we're going to remain agnostic-to-the-death, no matter what. That can happen.
Given the amount of unknown (unavailable) data in relation to the known available data, it is most likely that the death event will come long before all the data to be known will.
If it turns out that there is more to experience for the individual personality after that death event, then (for an Agnostic personality) it should be assumed it remains Agnostic and goes along with whatever unfolds in an Agnostic manner.
Well, there's a kind of truth in that statement, but not quite,
My statement acknowledges both positions and is truth re that.
I think. He would be very much like an Atheist, but would differ from that in that his insistent postion would be not, as in Atheism, that God doesn't exist, but rather that nobody is allowed to know that God exists.
No. Carrying on with the idea that a human personality will continue to experience things after the death event (of the human body) an Agnostic does not assume by that, that this will reveal/unveil/otherwise show that “God Exists” as that information could still be hard to access, depending on what the nature of that ongoing experience might be.
An Agnostic does not assume or have dogma/belief about what the nature of such an event might be.
That's a funny way to put it, maybe. We might ask how he can confidently claim to know what the limits of other people's knowledge are. And I don't think he'd have much to say in defense against that. After all, how would he already know what anybody but himself happens to know or not know?
Again, how is that any different a predicament for the Agnostic as it is for the Theist or Materialist?
As an Agnostic I cannot grant a double standard to Favor any of the 3 positions.
How we all know what another knows has to do with what we each show one another and only that which is knowable can be known.
It is the same as your knowing of Dawkins, because Dawkins wrote about his position on god-ideas and you also know that he thinks of himself as an Agnostic, only you also have been informed that he is incorrect about that, so how do you then get to know whether that information is true or false?
I'm not sure how much of an advance that would be on ordinary Atheism, in terms of rational defensibility. It would be a subspecies of agnosticism, though.
No. It would still be a position standing on its own, just like Theism and Agnosticism.
Materialism is not a subset of Agnosticism and there are aspects of all three within all three but we needn’t confuse those as being subsets but see them as they are – as agreements/alinements.
