While my most recent post about the Christian myths about atheists (yes, some of you were right, they’re really Christian myths, as I’m not really familiar with Buddhists, Taoists and such) attracted a lot of comments, a previous post of mine, The problem of Agnosticism also had some replies - including ones that called me “closed-minded”, and thought the post was “the biggest piece of retardation”. How can I resist the temptation to follow up on it? 
First, I have to say that I stand by what I said in that post. I warned readers that they might be offended, though that wasn’t my goal, and, sure enough, some were. Agnosticism is not really caring about the matter enough to think about it - or, to some (not any of you, apparently, but it is to some people), it’s a “get out of jail card”: just in case God happens to exist, best not offend him too much.
A lot of people also called me “arrogant” because I am certain about something that nobody can truly, ever, be 100% certain about: that there is no God. I don’t have mind/time/space powers to be absolutely sure. Why be an atheist, then, instead of an agnostic?
Because, as someone said in the Reddit discussion, that would also mean that you’d have to be Zeus-agnostic, Shiva-agnostic, Odin-agnostic, Invisible Pink Unicorn-agnostic and Flying Spaghetti Monster-agnostic. That is, you can’t be 100% certain that each one of them doesn’t exist.
If you’re not a sheep who follows the crowd, if you accept that many people believing in something doesn’t make it true, then you have no more reason to believe in Jehovah than in Odin. Is this so hard to grasp? Is Odin less “real” - or less likely to exist - than the Christian god, simply because virtually no one believes in him today?
(A Christian, here, will say “the difference is that God is real and Odin is not”. Circular logic, anyone? The reason to believe God is real is that you believe God is real?!?)
An agnostic, then, will say that he has no way of really knowing that God doesn’t exist. But neither can he prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist. Nobody can prove it. So, in order for it to make any bit of sense, he has to call himself an FSM-agnostic.
And why restrict himself to gods? He’s never seen a goblin or a fairy, but, then again, he hasn’t been in every single place in the world. If he really has an open mind, he can’t say that fairies or goblins don’t exist. He must, therefore, be a fairy-agnostic and a goblin-agnostic. In fact, he can’t be certain about the non-existence of the Easter Bunny either.
See the problem?
Agnosticism, like I said in the other post, is like calculating 2 + 2, and the result is 4 every time… and, yet, you refuse to say that “2 + 2 = 4″, because that’s “arrogant” - it may no longer be 4 the next time you calculate it. (*) If that isn’t intellectually lazy - and crippling -, then I don’t know what it is.
(*) please, no semantic games, like redefining the meaning of “2″ or “+”, or using base 3.
Related posts:
You *can* be certain that the Flying Spaghettimonster, the Tooth Fairy and the Goblins and whatever supernatural creatures you want to use as examples are not *in this word*, that they have not interfered with our world in any way observable, and still call yourself an agnostic. Even if those *do exist*, they don’t matter any more than God because they have no influence on the universe.
The Christianity Fraud.
I fsomething proves itself to be only promoted by deception, then we must assume it is false.
Hi there Pedro I’ve been really enjoying the blog and was wondering if you might be interested in contributing to an upcoming brain parade we’re running on science and religion. If you are send me an e-mail.
I think part of the problem around agnosticism again comes from the fact that you’re addressing a Christian paradigm. I think it depends on how you define the word “God” whether or not you would define someone as agnostic or atheist. If you define the word “God” solely as the Christian God, star of the old testament and second billing in the New, then I’d have to define myself as an atheist. But if you take the word “God” and apply it to “some type of divine intelligence that is fundamentally unknowable,” then I’d probably fit the agnostic version. And that’s the real problem I have with labels… they’re shortcuts to thinking that tend to oversimplify.
I think your points are perfectly valid about being agnostic only about the Christian god. And by those standards, I’m equally atheistic towards Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Jehovah, et al. However, I personally still think of myself as AGNOSTIC…. it’s always been the best term, I felt, for the kind of emergent, thinking-in-some-unknowable-way intelligent universe that I personally “believe” in, which is why the atheist label doesn’t really fit either. And the very problem with labels is why I choose to “believe” in something unlabelable (if that’s even a word).
Ok, so like I said before, I’m not offended at all by your argument about agnosticism. However, I do think it’s beneficial to try and get people to understand that agnosticism is a fruitful ideology.
So, in this posting you argue that the problem with agnosticism is that you have to admit the possibility of all these other crazy things being true, like spaghetti monsters and whatnot. Yes, this is true. I absolutely do not claim with %100 certaintly that there is not a pink bubble monster living under my bed.
However, I make the assumption that there is not. I base that assumption on the fact that I have never seen such monster under my bed, have no reason to think there is, and I can do an experiment in which I check every 5 minutes, and do not find such monster under my bed.
So, now, I feel good about my assumption. I feel so good about it, that I make a decision to go to sleep, in my bed, every night, without worry about some bubble monster. Therefore, without having to say anything for certain, I have (1) made an estimation about my surroundings, (2) made a decision on how to live my life based on that estimation, and (3) enforced my decision in my everday life.
Why do I need to say with %100 certainty that there is no bubble monster, zeus, or christian god? What good does it do me? It just wastes my time. My time is valuable. I want to spend it on things that I’ve defined (arbitrarily) as valuable in my life. Making the assumption that the christian god does not exist makes it perfectly easy for me to do this.
In fact, the only time I can imagine when %100 certainty would be important, is if I’m trying to prevent some believer from blocking my from something I want to do. If I can’t find a way around this person, then I need to find a way to convince him not to block me. So am I better off saying “No God:%100 certainty” or “Look, let’s be humble and say we don’t know for sure…in that case can we base our decision on how the outcome will be…in other words, will my actions hurt either of us or anyone else”?
Which of the 2 above arguments would work better? I think that’s a difficult question to answer, and likely depends on the specifics of a given circumstance. But either way, I don’t think it’s obvious in any way that either of the two arguments is fundamentally better.
Totally agree with Mike on the point that you don’t seem so much athiest than you do almost odin-christianity. Not saying you are, but when you’ve rebuttled ‘Einstien believes in GOD’ with ‘No, not in the christian sence’ than you’ve not argued atheism, but instead odin-christianity.
I’ve posted this before, but if one is truely seeking a truth, than logically you cannot dismiss something that has probable cause. For example:
Unless time in infinite - which who knows, it may be - there has to have been a point in which things began. Socraties called the event/object that began all things the ‘first mover’
This does not mean GOD ie. But unless you know what that first mover was/is, you cannot as a scientist, as a philosopher, as an actively thinking individual say that it couldn’t have been GOD.
This doesn’t mean become a follower of something that may or may-not exist, it means that a mind seeking truth cannot obliterate an idea simply because there is no proof against it.
A mind following truth will pursue such questions untill he or she dies.
This DOES NOT apply to the sphaggetti monster as the mythical being in this case has not in any way any probable cause for existance.
I see it a bit different. As an agnostic I simply _don’t know_ if there is any god. As an atheist I _know_ (or believe
there is no god.
btw. I like this quote:
God is a concept by which we measure our pain.
(John Lennon)
“and thought the post was ‘the biggest piece of retardation’.”
Ah-ha, you quoted me, that’s great.
I’m glad you followed up on it. See, your “Tooth Fairy” vs. “God” argument is lacking some structure, though.
When you are young and you lose a tooth, you put it under your pillow because your parents tell you that the tooth fairy will give you money.
When you are living, you don’t know if there was divine intervention or just a random coincidence that humanity could live. Nobody can tell you that they’re 100% sure that there is a god. Same with there not being one. You may think that there isn’t- but look, you can still be wrong. I. Just. Don’t. Know. And never will.
And btw, about the “get out of jail” thing; if hell exists, I’m going there if I’m Agnostic or not.
And that’s hilarious that you quoted me.
Also, I want to seriously talk to you about this subject. If you could contact me over e-mail, since it has it in the reply thing, and sorry for the double post. I seriously need you to see what I’m saying. >.>
> Agnosticism, like I said in the other post,
> is like calculating 2 + 2, and the result is 4
> every time… and, yet, you refuse to say that
> “2 + 2 = 4″, because that’s “arrogant” - it may
> no longer be 4 the next time you calculate it.
> If that isn’t intellectually lazy - and crippling -,
> then I don’t know what it is.
I cannot know what will or will not happen tomorrow. There might exist a being who can redefine ‘2′ and ‘4′ and in doing so wipe away all of humanity’s knowledge about what ‘2′ and ‘4′ previously were. This, of course, leads to some metaphysical/metacognitive tangent about the meanings of ‘2′ and ‘4′ in a universal sense. That’s surely a discussion you can pursue later. My point:
My lack of knowledge about the existence of any ‘god’ applies equally to any sureness of knowledge regarding Zeus, Shiva, Odin, Invisible Pink Unicorn, the tooth fairy, FSM, what-have-you. In fact, I go so far as to extend my agnosticism to _everything_ I interact with. I cannot know that the atomic weight of hydrogen will remain constant tomorrow. I cannot know that water will still freeze at 0 Celcius tomorrow, given standard pressure-volume-temperature. I cannot know that everywhere in the universe, conservation of energy and mass is being observed. I cannot know that light will continue to scatter in the atmosphere to give the appearance of blue. I am open to the possibility that anything at any time may change, and I also accept that the chances of that occurring are infinitismally (”impossibly,” you may say) small. This is the key point: even knowing the odds, I do not–and cannot!–completely eliminate the possibility that some event may occur that changes everything I believe in. I cannot even know that an event has already occurred that has changed everything that I believe in.
I am logically consistent in my agnosticism, and my type of agnosticism is in no way, shape, or form indicative of anyone else’s form of agnosticism.
Reply to your agnostic friends!
Joe: my email address is in the Who am I? page. But if it’s about this, I’d prefer to talk about it through comments.
Antoine: you’re being more logical than many agnostics, who are agnostic about ONE god and atheistic about all the others.
But I think that believing in such a “fluid” reality (or UNreality) is crippling - you lose the capacity to think in terms of causes and consequences, since you believe that the rules of the universe can be changed on a whim, at any time. If, in my entire life, the universe has been 100% natural, I expect it to remain so tomorrow; if it did change, I’d deal with it then. But observation and experience allow me to be reasonably sure that it will stay natural - just like I’m reasonably certain that there are no fairies, even though I haven’t seen every single square inch of the world.
Pedro,
You just gave the argument of an agnostic. This is all just word games at this point.
Naturally, I do not find my stance crippling. I choose conceive of everything as a measure of probability, however remote the odds. My “extreme agnostic” stance does not prevent me from utilizing cause and effect; I simply think of things that most people take for granted as things that will occur with “near-certain probability.” Will the earth continue rotating in the same direction? Possibly not, but 39419/39420 times (greater, even!), it likely will. Even if it weren’t to happen somehow on my 108th birthday, I’d likely be dead anyway and as such, I probably wouldn’t care.
I emphasize one point about my belief system: everything still has a chance of happening, and while I accept that such implausibilities _may_ happen, please do understand that I use “may” very loosely. I do recognize that such implausibilities are just that: implausible. I think that we will both agree that the words “implausible” and “impossible” are not one and the same. Then there’s the idea of “implausible is effectively practically impossible,” but that’s not my point… and besides, that’s really a whole other discussion.
The idea that there can’t be a god seems to stem from the same reasonings religions use to justify their beliefs. You may see no evidence of a god around in the same way christian would see everything as evidence of him. My personal falure to believe either side stems from a general apathy towards both side. If there is no god I have no reason to believe in him. If there is a god I probably don’t like the rules he has for me. If he’s a nice god he could probably forgive my skepticism towards an unproven force. If he ends up being not so nice I have no desire to worship him anyway. I just see no reason to pursue either end because the end result will have me doing my own thing whether he’s there or not. That’s my personal experience with it anyway.
I’m agnostic because I think this is the only rational/logical belief. This is not a something new and therefore it is useless to write, but I want to add something. When you talk about the different godS(Zeus, Shiva, God, Neptune, Boudha, etc.), don’t you think(try to be theist for a second, just to understand) they are all the same? Different names for one guy(or girl, wathever). Religions are just a different view of the same concept. If there is a creator, I don’t think two gods worked together to create the universe(they are so powerful, why would they need help). It seems I’m the only one to think that way(I have never heard/read this idea before); if there is a god, then we all have the same one. So, I’m agnostic about all the gods. Religion wars are indeed stupid.
As for your spaguetti’s flying unicorn, eh
Let’s say that we must fill our spriritual need for a god, but not for these “piece of retardation” 
Anyway, that’s a good argument!
Ignorance is bliss and the truth hurts. Spirtual needs?
I never thought of the atheist vs agnostic situation before. But it seems to me its the agnostics who use the same arguments as the theists.
Granted i much prefer agnostics to the pack mentality brain washed dilusional religious types.
I will admit if i am personally conforted by someone in a religion discussion i know i cant do anything but say.
I dont follow any of the organised religions. I dont want to hurt theyre blissfull ignorance.
Unless they are trying to sell me theyre religion then i can laugh at them or pity them.
But what is an agnostic? someone who believes that it is possible for a god to exist?
What is a God, a creating force ? A force or entity that we cant be aware of that cares about what we do?
I cant understand what an agnostic is
Is it just a non offensive, avoiding type atheist. As i have to act sometimes to friends and family.
The only way I can put my agnosticism into a framework is with a metaphor: I can’t begin to speculate on what forces run the universe - I can’t even wrap my head around why electricity doesn’t leak out of the plugs in my wall. A lot of people much smarter than me assure me that that could never happen, so I accept it. A lot of people much smarter than myself are utterly convinced in the existence of God. They don’t SEEM delusional, but God (as commonly received) seems really, REALLY unlikely, so I choose to keep my options open. Fundamentalists would say that that is enough to damn me, but Pascall’s Wager seems sensible enough, so I try to live a good life, keep my head down and my mind open.
hmm yeah
agnosticism
is it possible for my hand to pass right threw this table
the simple truth yes yes it has a chance
do i think it will happen
of course fucken not that would be like thinking that every singe asteroid in the entire known universe
is going to hit us at once
but it is possible as an agnostic person
to believe in a multi dimensional theory
not dimensions in space ( which im not sure exists )
or time ( which im pretty dam sure dosent exist )
but size
yes
so if we are the pimple on the giants nose theory
then isint he our god
our whole reason for existing
or are the billion of civisations which have appeared over this last fraction of our perspective
sitting on our so called electrons and photons
our true purpose? perhaps but no likely
but whats the point
well most likely there is none
the giant would just as likely pop us out sending us into a massive furnace ( not that it wud do anything to us )
as he would love all of us
probability is everything and anything is possible
good luck understanding this garbage
i rant more accurately in person
excuse the horrible english
You ground your atheisim in cold hard logic. Nothing wrong with that. But consider this.
For years, I considered myself an athiest, due to your very logic (2+2=4, et al). However, after gaining more understanding of how science works (the actual methods), the logical conclusion is to be agnostic. Quite simply, 2+2=4 oversimplifies the situation. Take this for example:
Back 1000+ years ago, they thought everything was made of 5 elements (earth, fire, water, etc). Then we found more refined methods to study it, and discovered atoms. Then we discovered that atoms themselves have parts; protons, electrons, neutrons. THEN we discovered that those particles are made up of quarks. And now we believe they’re made up of even SMALLER particles.
Stating “Our world is composed of atoms” in your sense would be innaccurate, because those atoms are actually made up of quarks. So ultimately, everything we have to go on is theory (even pi has changed its values several times over the years, and we still don’t know all of it).
To apply this to theology, with current technology we have NO WAY of proving weather or not God (gods, re-encarnation, etc) exists, and to claim otherwise is merely being stubborn, in the same way that many people were resistant to believing the world was round.
And under some parrallel universe theories, all the “fantasies” that you say an agnostic would have to be agnostic about could potentially exist in a parrallel universe. I suggest watching the anime Noien for an interesting thought game on this topic.
So all in all, I proudly say I’m an agnostic, not because I “refuse to state 2+2=4,” but because I acknowledge that we are INCAPABLE of finding proof one way or the other.
The anime Noein is indeed interesting to watch and presents the open-minded viewer with many ideas to think on. If your into quantum-physics and the whole mutipledimension and timespace subject, its well worth a watch.
I agree with that. I remember thinking that after I read George H. Smith. His arguments only apply to the Xian god, b/c xians are positing that god has certain characteristics, e.g. omniscience and omnipotence. Those are easily refuted. I have no doubt that the judeo-xian god does not exist.
However, if you say that god is the life force in everything, then well, it’s hard to say god doesn’t exist.
But, my experience has been that whenever someone backs you into a corner until you cry “uncle” and admit that yes, one can’t really know for sure, they don’t really think of god in any way other than the judeo-xian way, and they are using semantics to try to get you to agree with them. They will walk away feeling victorious, but they will still go on thinking about god in their limiting way.
And I think it was in George H. Smith’s book where he mentioned that you can be an atheistic agnotic or a theistic agnostic.
But really, it only matters on the sense of the judeo-xian god, anyway. (I don’t know enough about other religion’s gods). I mean, if god is love, or if god is the universal life force, or if god is string theory, who cares? It makes not one bit of difference if you say you don’t believe in the life force that pervades all living creatures. B/c it exists whether you believe it or not. It’s like saying that you don’t believe in the color blue. It exists. And a life force and a color cannot damn you to hell for all eternity. The only reason people get all bent out of shape when you claim to be an atheist or an atheistic agnostic is that they are thinking that you are going to hell. Well, since the judeo-xian god is the one who will send you to hell, and since it’s quite easy to refute his existence, then there’s no problem. If god is something else entirely, like life force, then it doesn’t matter whether you believe or not. And it shouldn’t be anyone else’s business whether you believe or not.
Nil said:
Nil, the problem here is that, to an atheist, there is no difference between the former and the latter. I don’t have a “spiritual need for a god” - that’s almost like the “god sense” that many Christians say everyone has.
You say that agnosticism is more logical, because we can never really prove that there is no god. You’re right that we can’t. But my point is that we can’t, equally, prove that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I have as much reason to believe in one as in the other. I have never seen any proof, or even any indication, than either of them exists.
Both of them are, to me, obviously human inventions.
The major difference is that many more people believe in one than in the other… but what difference does that make? The truth is not dependent on how many people believe in it. 1000 years ago everyone “knew” that the world was flat, but belief doesn’t shape reality (and not even the Christians claim it does).
I’m convinced that there is no god or FSM. I’m god-atheistic and FSM-atheistic.
To the author;
Hey Kid, I can simpathize. You’d be surprised, but I know exactly what you’re going through right now, I’ve been there. It’s very difficult to be highly intelligent and surrounded by fools who would prefer to hide under a rock than use their brains. Something you might want to consider, your problem with agnosticism may not lie within agnosticism itself (since it’s not really a thing, but that’s beside the point) the point is that their is something in your concept of agnosticism that you deeply dislike. You make a very good point about the other religious pantheons, there are some who would question those, but most agnostics are christians, or at least the idea of god they question is the judeo-christian god, so I bet most agnostics you have encountered are not true agnostics, they are just idiots. Don’t let it get you down, just keep on applying your mind, and remember, no one is healthy without introspection, though I suspect you already know that, you might not KNOW it yet. Take care, and remember, intelligence is seldom recognized in the unintelligent.
First things first: I normally dont reply to these kinds of things because I find it more interesting to simply read along and see that everything I may have said to follow up on a post has already been stated by someone else. However, this is a strong subject for me.
Most of my family is Christian. I was raised until I was about 7 to believe in “god” and go to church. To find salvation through confessing my sins, etc. However, at this age my father got a new job and often had to work overtime on Sundays, so my parents stopped going to church. At this point, I’m 21 and haven’t been to church since that age, aside from a few trips out of respect when I was younger (Christmas, Easter, the like, in respect for the majority of my Christian extended family).
I suppose at those times I was rather sheepish about truly expressing my beliefs because perhaps they weren’t completely formed yet. Today, however, I consider myself agnostic and am as agnostic about pink bubble monsters as I am against the christian god. I agree strongly with Antoine and John (I never really thought about that electricity thing, but now that you mention it, it is rather strange). I guess what I’m trying to say is that I can see both sides.
Is it wrong for me to feel awkward when I come home from college, and I eat dinner with my family, and my parents ask my sister to say grace before the meal? Is it wrong for that grace to be the same thing, over and over, said with such monotony every night? I mean, literally, the same lines “God is good, God is great, let us thank him for our food. By his hand we must be fed, give us, Lord, our daily bread. Amen.”
One of the hardest things for me is saying grace, because I know I’m lying to myself when I pretend for my parents to believe that strongly in a god, but what can I do? It seems that in being agnostic, having an open mind and believing strongly that anything (and I do mean ANYTHING) is possible, I should have no awkward feelings about saying grace out of respect for my family who likes to think they are believers…
I don’t really know where I’m going with this, but I do know one thing. I can’t possibly fathom why the sky is above us and not below us. I cannot ever know how far space goes, or that there will not be a way tomorrow for me to drive the 36 miles to work at 36mph, and arrive there in 12 and a half minutes. These are things that as some here have said are “fundamentally unknowable” and I agree with that 100%. There are some things in life that we simply cannot know, but that theory in itself is impossible to be certain of. I can’t know that tomorrow I won’t wake up and find that 2+2 = 5, or that 1036 years after that someone will discover that 2+2 = 3. The point is, I’m agnostic in every aspect of life, not just religion, and it bothers me that my family makes it a point to say grace every evening, yet they can’t find the time to go to church.
Is it wrong to feel this way, even if I’m a hardcore agnostic?
For most of you to, atleast to some degree, understand and comprehend what it is the tangent of this post has taken, you really need to have a degree in physics. With the above posts mentions to probabilities of events and hence the reason for his agnostic beliefs, he should take comfort in the theories of the 10 dimensions where the final dimension is meant to be connections to infinite other ‘versions’ of the universe, ie, different speeds of lights, different ratios of matter, different starting events of the big bang, or even different beginnings differing to the big-bang, and unfortunately the ‘god’ one doesn’t appear as one of the infinite point universes.
Although I find this post entertaining, it seems to me, that you have a very weird definition of agnosticism(or have only seen weak agnosticism).
Like others here, I don’t believe in any form of a personal god, or a god that needs to be worshipped or feared. But I do wonder if there is some form of universal force that structes everything that is and isn’t. Is it possible to discover that such force exists? No. Does it really matter? No.
Not sure if linking is allowed here but check this one out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism , it shows some different forms of agnosticism.
Atheism or Christianity? That is the question with which I struggle constantly. I’m always reading articles and watching programs regarding the theories of darwinism, the big bang theory, infinite alternate universes etc., and it all makes sense to me. On the other hand, after going through college courses in chemistry and biology, and seeing the properties of atoms and subparticles, and how they fall into such an organized periodic table, the complexity of the eukaryotic cell and the unique computer-like coded DNA found in each one of us, it is hard to attribute this universe solely on chance alone.
I’m familiar with all the major religios beliefs and histories, and have decided that Christianity makes the most convincing argument. Not to say I believe in it, but I ponder what do I have to gain or lose by choosing atheism or Christianity? For Chrisitianity, I really don’t have to change a whole lot. Just give up a few vices and devote a little time each day to God, and I end up gaining a life in eternal paradise if it turns out to be true. For atheism, I get to do whatever I want during my life on Earth, within the limits of the local government, but if I’m wrong I get to spend an eternity suffering. Either way I can still accomplish the goals I may have during my life here. So why not choose Christianity? Guess it comes down to my lack of faith; atheists have faith there is no God, Christians have faith there is.
Whoops, clicked on ze wrong link, gg. Disregard that post, as it really doesn’t pertain to this thread.
To Drewzilla: Is it faith alone like you say or is one the prefered option of (even to say that christianity has an equal arguement). I think that If christianity stated that there was no afterlife and athiesm did there would be many less christians (a bit off the subject, i know)
I am an athiest, but i disagree with your reasons about agnosticism. I can see from some of the posts that these people are slighty intellectually lazy in my opinion, and that is a reason to disagree with them. However, not everyone thinks in the same matter as you, no matter how high the odds are of there being no god say it be 99.99% theres no reason why you cant say its MORE LIKLEY that there is no god. Just because the odds are against another idea doesnt mean it has to be disregarded. It is not intellectually lazy to understand that there is not (in my opinion) a very valid reason to HAVE to chose between one and the other (that being athiesm and thiesm) and thus, there not haveing have a choice made it is alright to say that you CANNOT BE CERTAIN there is no God. It is not intellectually lazy to decide that just because one option is more likley you should discredit the other.
And really, to get a point across it will always seem more valid if you dont try and insult the opposing parties intellegence by comparing God to a FGM. One has semi-logical (in my opinion) reasons to believe in and the other does not.
One thing Ive seen over and over in posts is the statement “does it really matter”. And when i think about that your arguement no longer makes sense. How does not caring make something a valid theory? Just because something is too hard, or maybe impossible to fully understand doesnt mean that taking the easy way out and relaxing at knowing youve simply made a choice is right.
An interesting thought I had one day that slighty pertains to the posts here is that why would anyone want to leave God?
He is all loving, all forgiving, always there for you, always helping you out in a time of need, he can offer you everything you ever wanted to have in eternal paradise, he can be your BEST friend that you can put more trust in than anyone else (A major reason why some people are afriad to make relationships serious)?
Then why?
The truth
This has always been my view of my agnosticism (and it’s probably not exact to the definition of agnosticism, just how I think of it. As a matter of fact, it probably falls under a whole new religion altogether, but whatever); I believe that there is no God, but I cannot be sure. As a rule, I don’t believe whatever can’t be proven. This does, as you said, give me a sort of ‘get out of jail free’ card, just incase God (or any other form of higher deity (sp?)) acctually does exist. But then, why would I worship someone who created this world, and then left us to wander it, untaught and anaware to its ways? That’s like obeying the father who abuses you, or the husband who drinks? It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Basically, in summary, I don’t believe what can’t be proven. But, should God acctually exist, I wouldn’t worship him anyway.
The real question for me is ‘Does it matter if you believe in God?’.
For example, take the phenomenon of Christmas and Santa Claus. Innocent children that have not yet questioned the greater mysteries of the universe take what they are told to be fact. They do believe in Santa Claus. In effect, so do most adults. The belief in Santa Claus and the Christmas tradition of his visit is a major driver of economies all over the world. It shows up in art, in economics, affecting behavior of children (and ultimately the rest of us as we set the examples for good little boys and girls). We pray to Santa Claus, he has repeated image. Children write him messages and mail them with the faith that he will read them (prayer). We respond to those messages, delivering meaning to the children who subscribe to the tenants of faith (effectively being priests or conduits for Santa Claus). Does the faith create and empower Santa Claus or does he (the being) create the faith through his actions. Are all of our actions in the name of promoting the faith of the believers the cumulative will of Santa? The concept that a deity exists and is empowered as a result of the number and faith of his followers is not a new one.
Now, if you look at the various stages of belief amongst the worshippers of Santa Claus, is any of them more or less important? You have the young children who believe with all their heart. They never see Santa Claus, they only see the effects of his will (the cumulative will of everyone involved). For them it is enough, they believe, completely. We all marvel at their belief and long for the innocence lost to compassionately believe. Then you have the doubters, the children who’ve discovered some reason not to believe in Santa Claus. The one’s who try to convince everyone that Santa is not real, stating with authority to adults and to smaller children that he is not real. They are sure, they’ve witnessed other people claiming to be Santa and doing deeds in his name and they are sure that because those examples of misguided souls to DEMONSTRATE Santa to reinforce the belief they want to inspire in the young children and because of this betrayal (ie, holy wars, organized religion, nameless abuses of power, etc) they stamp their feet and put their hands on their hips and say, “I know there is definitely not a Santa Claus, you’re just making it up”. Some years later, even those (almost 100%) who experience the agnostic periods and ultimately the defiante atheist stance find themselves promoting the ideals they were given as true believers into their own group of true believers (playing Santa for their kids). The imitation is not perfect, but the spirit is there. The effect is there. We all put the retailers in the black in the 4th quarter every year recreating this great myth.
At what point is the great myth recognized for not being a myth on it’s own accord. If the spirit is real, the tenants of faith are ‘faithfully’ transmitted to the new believers/converts, and if the physical world is affected by the belief of the true believers, is the myth a myth anymore? Does it really matter that noone can find Santa at the North Pole? Does that mean he doesn’t exist?
I believe this third state is a higher level of understanding. It is beyond absolute belief (fundamentalism). It’s beyond the concerns of discrepancy between western scientific thought and stories from the bible (agnosticism). It’s beyond the defiant cry of the atheist who has decided he has enough information to proclaim that “God” does not exist. I’ve been through each of these stages as they apply to modern Protestant Religion (as my personal vehicle). I even someties recycle through each stage of belief to better understand the whole cycle. I think this latest stage for myself can be called Progenitor. I have strong appreciation for the path I’ve walked along in my decades and I’m starting to raise children. I want them to have the chance to experience a similar path to enlightenment and to deny the the opportunity of true belief during innocence risks breaking the cycle for them.
I like what my cyclic of faith has done for me over the years, so now it’s my turn to buy the presents, decorate the house, sing the songs, help write and respond to the letters, document their discovery and experience, and ultimately use this vehicle of faith to bestow what bit of wisdom I’ve gleaned from this world and the moral compass I’ve found for myself unto my own progeny. When they need an atheist, there will be one to find. When they need someone agnostic, there will be one to find. When they need to receive a gift, I’ll try my best to supply. I will laugh with their joy and cry with their devlopment into experience.
In the end, I don’t fault anyone for their beliefs. If people use the belief system of others for personal gain (tyrants leading holy wars), then I agree it’s the responsibility of the rest of us to overcome and diminish their effect on the world. I’ve studied many (but nowhere near all) religions and belief systems from around the globe, and the one thing I find common to them is an enlightened way of peace. I think the things people get upset about between the various religions are simply the stories that children tell about how Santa Claus demonstrated his will for them (through their parents and environoment). It is unfortunately a war for resources based on the idea that Santa Claus intended for one person or group to get all the presents because his parents unfortunately told him he was the ‘BEST good little boy’ and that the other boys were ‘bad little boys’ and that it is his right to take what Santa has deemed *his*!
I hope I haven’t been to vague or verbose.
hy·poc·ri·sy — That’s next to evilness in my book. To take up a religion just to save your soul, is hypocritical in my book, and a god who lets you in heaven when you go to church for selfish reasons is no god I would respect.
An Aethist who claims to believe to be a logical scientist, and yet blindly believes there is no god of any kind is as hypocritical as a believer who follows a random faith just to save his/her soul.
To the comparisons of tooth fairies and gods — poppy-cock! The man-made-up fantasies like tooth fairies and Jesus are one thing, but the abstract idea of the possibility of a higher consiousness or power is not dis-provable. My idea is no mater what reality one creates in which you can prove god or no god could possibly be the creation of a truly omniscient power. Best to leave the possibilities to fantasy novelists, and concentrate on making our world a better place.
I vote for organized religions which claim to “know” the truth be abolished. How refreshing if a man of god would admit, “I don’t know.” Maybe he would be less likely to condemn others who don’t know either.
From what you are saying you don’t actually appear to be an atheist at all, but simply an extremely skeptical agnostic. Unless you are actually saying it is an absolute impossibility for God to exist. This is the problem with atheism though, it claims the existence of an absolute (God does not exist), which fundamentally is the same as claiming that God does exist, even if rationally speaking it makes a lot more sense as there is no evidence for God.
hehe 2+2=5 1984 AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Alvin: that point has been discussed to death. Being an atheist is not having “blind faith” that there is no god. It’s just coming to the most obvious conclusion.
horus: you’re actually saying the opposite as Alvin, that I’d have to say it’s impossible for God to exist to be an atheist. I don’t claim that. I don’t say it’s “impossible” for God to exist.
What I say is this: I am convinced that there is no god. All human religions and faiths are so obviously man-made and absurd that it hurts to see adults involved in them, but what about there actually being some god or god-like entity or “universal spirit”? It can never be proved that one doesn’t exist, and I’m not pretending to be able to. However, if there is nothing supernatural, then the universe is 100% natural. If the universe is 100% natural, then God has nothing to do. Just because we don’t know something, it does not follow that it’s logical to say “God did it” - especially because we once thought the same about thousands of things we now know to be natural.
I have a virtual infinity of reasons to believe that the universe is natural - chief among them the fact that from all appearances it is. I have no reason at all to believe in God - the argument from ignorance (”how was the universe created? What existed before it?”) has been shown to be faulty about many other previously unknown things, the “holy books” are full of contradictions, atrocities, and paint a very poor picture of their “gods”, which show all signs of having been made up by men - and I’m talking primitive desert tribes here, to whom things like “72 virgins in the afterlife” (see, I don’t speak against just Christianity :)) were surely the greatest, most wonderful thing they could imagine. Believing in something just because a great many people do so is also illogical and just plain wrong.
Don’t you see? An atheist is one who sees there are zero reasons to believe, and a lot of them not to. So he uses that to make up his mind.
An agnostic, instead, is someone who refuses to decide. He refuses to admit that one option is extremely unlikely and the other is extremely likely. “After all, who am I to know?”
[quote]Agnosticism, like I said in the other post, is like calculating 2 + 2, and the result is 4 every time… and, yet, you refuse to say that “2 + 2 = 4″, because that’s “arrogant” - it may no longer be 4 the next time you calculate it. (*) If that isn’t intellectually lazy - and crippling -, then I don’t know what it is.[/quote]
This isn’t really how logic works. Even 2+2=4 is based on deeper axioms which are accepted without proof. But aside from that:
A more apt example would be to have a bag of five billion marbles (or the large number of your choice that is too big for you to really deal with). You keep pulling marbles out of the bag one at a time. You notice they are all black. You cannot logically say all of the marbles in the bag are black just from continuous testing.
Or, for a more mathematical example, you can look at measurable sets. If one just starts coming up with sets and seeing if they are measurable, they’re pretty much going to see that all of the sets they come up with are measurable. However, the correct conclusion is not that all sets are measurable. There are non-measurable sets. They’re just really, really bizarre.
Use of formal logic does not lead one to atheism any more than it leads away from it.
Not a perfect comparison, either, as a white marble in the bag isn’t something supernatural. Although it’s perfectly OK, after 4 billion black marbles, to assume that they’re all black, the idea of a white one in there doesn’t really require “a leap of faith”.
I think this is an old argument, but I’ll rehash it off the top of my head:
1. Assumption (from a Christian upbringing) - God makes us in his own image.
2. Assumption (from some familiarity with popular science and dictionary.com) - Entropy - The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
3. Assumption (from some familiarity with popular science and dictionary.com) - Life - The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism (summarized as the ORGANization of materials and/or energy and the ability to reproduce from otherwise inert materials subject to Entropy).
Theory: Some willful entity, or “God”, created a self-replicating, cyclic pattern, or “Life”, in the otherwise docile set of resources that follow the simplistic rules of Entropy, or “Universe”. We are a recent cycle in the pattern. The success of the pattern in replicating itself suggests God’s knowledge of how the pattern will unfold, and thus he has intimate knowledge of our existence. Furthermore, God can experience the time axis of the pattern perfectly, rather than from our perception of time as an ordered series of events.
A similar idea is a CRT TV Set. We (like God) see a 3D image on a 2D screen that is actually a series of 1D pixels that are experienced in series of event and location. The CRT only experiences the series of electrons.
Before you throw the razor at this, do it properly. Present another theory that is simpler (having fewer assumptions).
Science does not, as far as I’m aware, have a quantifiable reason for the existence of life in a universe otherwise ruled by Entropy. One of the basic properties of life is the organization of resources (inanimate matter) to sustain itself. It stands to reason that something (self-aware or not, makes little difference) started the pattern of life that however briefly and sporadically works in opposition to the basic assumptions of Entropy. Another key property of life is that it seeks to recreate itself from raw materials to continue the cycle. Without some form of reproduction, life ceases.
Similarly, humans try to recreate themselves in means other than biological procreation. We seek to clone ourselves out of basic elements, build imitations of ourselves with gadgetry, replace missing parts of our bodies when they are no longer whole, teach our thought patterns and behaviors to lower life forms, create synthetic intelligence, and so forth. We, are in effect, trying to create life in our own image, perhaps superior, perhaps inferior. It’s not nearly as basic a drive as our need to procreate biologically, but for some of us it is even more obsessive.
It stands to reason that if we can succeed in duplicating many facets of our being, especially to create an inferior being, but one that has many of the basic attributes for life that we could set into motion our own cyclic cascade of “artificial” life that would ultimately ‘evolve’ into something that could do the same, ad nauseum.
Inside of this is a paradox, that something had to create the pattern of life from which we emerge just as we can create the pattern of life that many of us seek to begin. Perhaps part of that pattern is the environmental conditions for the pattern to succeed (hence, our universe).
Is it more logical that what we see around us every day (the metaphor of a man building a robot) is somehow less likely than what we don’t see everyday from our limited perspective on time and space (the likelyhood that raw materials searching for entropy will somehow find themselves orgnized by chance in such a way as to create chemical and physical reactions that can ultimately reduce and even reverse the trends of entropy for brief periods of time)?
pedro I agree with your view, but I’m not sure about your definition of what is an agnostic and what is an atheist. You’re saying that an agnostic is someone who just kinda says, “well I can’t know either way so I’ll just not think about it”.. and I would agree that this kind of agnostic is not very clever at all. But I think even if you “believe” there is no God just as much as you “believe” gravity will still be there tomorrow, so long as you leave any possibility for being wrong, no matter how miniscule it is, you’re not strictly an atheist, you’re just a very very skeptical agnostic. I’m not really sure what the strict definition is though to be honest.
Well, axioms are all ultimately taken on faith, but that’s sort of beside the point of this discussion.
You can certainly assume after four billion black marbles that they are all black. However, at that point you are stepping outside the realm of logic. You state in the previous article that this is a “logical” thing to do. That is the statement with which I am taking issue.
Logic says you have to check every marble in the bag or come up with some other way to prove that all of the marbles are black.
Whether or not a “leap of faith” is involved in any way has nothing to do with it. It’s simply the way logic works. You can’t look at a problem with an infinite number of possible test cases, do a finite subset of them, and then make such an absolute claim based upon these tests and call it logic.
This is why you can’t really prove scientific theories.
Nil said:
“When you talk about the different godS(Zeus, Shiva, God, Neptune, Boudha, etc.), don’t you think(try to be theist for a second, just to understand) they are all the same? Different names for one guy(or girl, wathever). Religions are just a different view of the same concept.”
No, these aren’t just different names for the same god. You have polytheistic religions, and each god has specific characteristics. One religion’s claim of several gods means you have to be an Agnostic on each god.
Your assumption here is that any person who fully reasons the issues through will conclude that there is no god.
I do not share your assumption.
yeah you’re assuming everyone thinks about things similarly to you. not everyone does. theres a LOT more out there than you are taking into account is all. because you make sense IF the mindset you’re talking with is your own. think about how other poeple view life, especially when you get into the groups of athiests and agnostics. there are so many views about reality and they are all so obscure, but make rational sense. so remember that theres always someone with a bigger and brighter idea than you’re giving them credit for.
i completely understand where you’re coming from, and it makes sense in some cases, but not in all. i dont get offended, and i think you’re the same so i wont be careful with sugar coating anything. you’re assuming everyone thinks about things similarly to you. not everyone does. theres a LOT more out there than you are taking into account is all. because you make sense IF the mindset you’re talking with is your own. think about how other poeple view life, especially when you get into the groups of athiests and agnostics. there are so many views about reality and they are all so obscure, but make rational sense. so remember that theres always someone with a bigger and brighter idea than you’re giving them credit for.
the thing is that there are questions of the universe that are left unanswered such as, creation, and afterlife. A flying unicorn does not answer these questions therefore we do not have to believe in it. However we can come to a semi conclusion that there could be a power a.k.a god that may have created us and has an answer to the afterlife however we are not sure. We are sure that there is no real need to ponder about the existence of monsters and unicorns.
Well you seem to have left out the model agnostics. Who insofar as they actually hold to the concepts of model agnosticism are FSM-agnostic. I personally am a model agnostic and stand by the fundamental ideal of it’s approach to knowledge.
I DON’T BELIEVE ANYTHING.
The reason for this is fairly simple. All data I have ever recieved has come through my domnstrably fallable senses, and was filtered by my unavoidably subjective concepts and pre-concieved models of existance. Therefore all data I have for building “knowledge” are of questionable certainty. To “know” anything would require at least one unquestionable fact as a basis, I’ve yet to find one. Therefore I question my “knowledge” of the existance of the I’m sitting on as well as that of ANY god. I’m inclined to question the possibility of attaining any knowledge.
Then there is the concept of faith or belief as many refer to it. Well I find faith in anything I find doubt in to be foolish and dangerous and limiting. These concepts I’m sure are familiar to you as an atheist, so there is little need to go into them. But this is the reason I don’t believe anything. This includes the existance or non-existance of ANY god.
You might ask how one can function without faith or belief or knowledge. Well it’s fairly simple I accept that none of the perceptual models of the world I utilise may be correct however with observation I can see that within any given one things often appear to function within certain parameters. For example when I put a glass on a table despite my lack of belief in the model of existance that says these two objects exist I’ve yet to percieve the glass falling through the table so that is a fairly reliable action in that model and it’s not necessary to belive in either object or the model to see that within that model that action has fairly reliable results within the context of that model. Just as the average person need not concern themselves with the phsics question of whether the objects can actually touch to do the same action and get similar results.
In reference to the existance of gods, this question is one I find profoundly more difficult to find working moels for so I usually stick to intelectual musings and watching the interactions others have with their percieved gods within their personal models. Which by the way if you explore the Discordian religion and several other of the modern religions of similar form you’ll find people who don’t even belive in their god at all, yet have a working model of interaction with it.
As for tha analogy of 2 + 2 = 4, I hope you know this is cheating. The confines and rule of the universe of mathematics as we utilise it, are defined explicitly and clearly. One can aregue that it is a construct of man or that we discovered it and that it pre-existed us and we just came up with symbolic representations for it. But in either case the accepted system we use has clearly defined rules. Whether addition is inherent to the universe in some form or not our rules for it are defined by man. Our mathematical model is concrete and indisputable within it’s own pre-defined confines, so obviously 2+2=4. This is irrelevant when discussing the nature of existance not affected by the model we see it through. THE MENU IS NOT THE MEAL. Mathematics is a model, existance is not. Models are defined by man and thus within their own confines provable, the nature of existance is not defined by man and is only arguable through the use of perceptual models (whether or not they are correct.)
As a final note I was raised an atheist, however through the years I came to the realisation I don’t have enough faith to be one, this realisation was very liberating to me, but left me with the same problems with agnosticism you have mentioned in these two posts. With time and consideration and reading I’ve ended up where I am now. Just saying not all agnostics are atheists who haven’t thought about it. Some are atheists who thought about it alot throughout there life and had a failure of faith.
I hope you take the time to reply.
Ok, im confused to what i am. I see alot of your points and I hate not questioning anything. My parents taught me to question my whole life. But we call ourselves Christian because we believer there is a higher power out there “God”. But I disagree with all christian churches and cant go to any of them. I belive alot of what you do.
I listen to my logic and reason and have a healthy respect for life and death. bout the only difference is I think there is a god… do you no any religons like that anyone? or am I just a breed of my own?=) I Love science and understand the need for it. I also hate those ‘Evolution Abolutaly cant be real!” peopl. even if u do belive in god, why couldnt he have made evolution? he can do anything according to everyone right? so whats the problem. I guess I kind of Mix Science with Religon….I dont know im screwed up huh? Just does anyone know what I might fall into catagory wise? thax!