Debate on 567 Cape Talk

General Academics Religion and Philosophy
21

I only completed my first year of BA Theology and it was because of the philosophy class that I started thinking a bit about stuff more critically, but yeah… philosophy still makes my head hurt. We were never really encouraged to ask the “wrong” sorts of questions and that class was the most boring and I’m not at all certain that our lecturer was even appropriately qualified to really teach philosophy.

One thing though, theologians can’t be said to be totally ignorant when it comes to philosophy and when they pretend to be ignorant about e.g. the difference between metaphysical and epistemological terms or intentionally getting definitions wrong, it’s nothing to do with not knowing, but everything to do with employing dishonest tactics to trick the opposition. It’s therefore fair to say they are not interested in the truth, they are only interested in The Truth, playing on emotion and sounding convincing to people who already believe in god, so I wouldn’t ever assume that any pastor is really out to convert me, it’s all about keeping the delusion going in the flock he already has.

Their real targets are converting other christians or people from other faiths to their denonminations, it’s really not so much about spreading the word of Krist, but more like spreading the church collection (money) base and the powerbase (invluence) of whatever church/denomination he/she belongs to.

I think the Ken/Ham debate is an excellent example of what I’m talking about.

22

I’ve stated where I stand on the agnosticism issue, but found this on The Rational Response Squad:

If we examine the agnostic premise, we find that it is quite unreasonable. Agnosticism is based on the notion that we can have no knowledge on the god question. But for this to be true, the agnostic must know all possible arguments of atheism and theism,

And I must say, for a change I do not agree with this whole article. I think this is one of the first fallacious articles I’ve seen from this website.

I think this is just as absurd of the puritan’s definition of agnosticism, I cannot see how you must know all the arguments to say “I do not know everything” or “I cannot attain perfect knowledge about the claim and therefore I cannot know…” or something like that.

What do you guys think? Am I misunderstanding something here, or do they misrepresent the idea and is there a good counterpoint (if it’s a valid argument) or how would you correct that interpretation if it’s just plain wrong?

When I speak about agnosticism, I mean that a person says for example, I don’t know god exists, but I believe/do not believe he exists"

When e.g. a gnostic person speaks, he would say: I know there is/is not a god - here belief is obviously inferred. The atheist would probably hold up things like abiogenesis and TBBT or stringtheory/multiverse stuff as his proof, whereas the theist would hold up his holy books and whatever science supporting his ID/other explanation.

I understand the agnostic position as one claiming uncertainty, that perfect knowledge either doesn’t exist or cannot [yet] be obtained and don’t see how this is the same as no knowledge about a claim can exist

Knowledge as I understand it in my limited exposure to philosophy has to do about what truth is, how we can know this truth and what we accept as truth, like for example we accept the theory of gravity as true because of the effect we observe, christians accept the bible as revealed knowledge by god of his own existence (or at least those are the type of lines I was taught)

To me this is the same type of misinterpretation as people make with e.g. bisexuals as either being closet gay/lesbian or being confused.

Still it’s the first time I seem unable to come up with any good responses, if that ever comes up, in my own mind I cannot come up with a counter, apart from thinking it’s just wrong and I think I understand it correctly, but being unable to make a counterpoint is a clthear indication that I do not understand this as well as I thought I did.

23
Agnosticism is based on the notion that we can have no knowledge on the god question. But for this to be true, the agnostic must know all possible arguments of atheism and theism,
It doesn't mean we have [b]no[/b] knowledge on the god question.

It means the ultimate answer to does god(s) exist? is unknown (which it is) and unknowable (which it currently is)

They contradict themselves, “can have no knowledge on the god question” and yet "the agnostic must know all possible arguments "

(wtf!!)

24

Read carefully: The point is that you can’t state the knowledge is impossible before you exhaustively understand all the god theories. There may be one out there that is both provable (if true) and falsifiable (if not). In which case you cannot state that the god question is unanswerable, in which case you cannot, theoretically, claim to be agnostic.

I would counter that notion with this: Even if there is a provable and falsifiable religion, the agnostic can still remain agnostic towards all the religions that don’t meet that criteria.

25
the agnostic can still remain agnostic towards all the religions that don't meet that criteria.
Therefore all Christians are atheist ito Zeus, Shiva and Ra et al? They only believe in one(??) more god than I do...right? The term atheist is taken to mean the lack of belief in a deity. However, modern usage suggests it means lack of belief in Yaweh/Jebus to Christians and Al'lah to Muslims....
26

This is why I like epistemology so much, and why I’m so scared of philosophy, ever since I first started asking myself questions I’ve been feeling a bit insecure about the stuff I “know” while having my faith goggles on I’ve accepted many, many crazy things and although thinking more critically about claims and becoming more skeptical has proven to be very good for my own mental health, it’s really also a pain in the ass, as I re-evaluate the things I was taught, I’m at times pained with figuring out what claims that fill my memory banks are really valid, accurate and true.

@ Brian, I don’t agree with the conclusion you seem to reach, you’re conflating epistemology with metaphysics again, although, epistemology do also deal with belief, that is not the type of conclusion you reach through using epistemic thinking, in my understanding.

Jeesh, this could be one those threads that should be split off, seems I’ve derailed another thread :-[

I would put that quote as something more like the agnostic can still be agnostic about religion, because supernatural claims cannot be known, and be gnostic about e.g. evolution.

The big problem is knowledge - what do you mean by knowledge, how can you know a claim is true and what do you accept as being true?

I agree with you cyghost, I don’t like that statement at all, I have trouble with the part that you would have to know all the argument, but I think I can agree that we can have no knowledge on the god question, but still, it’s a bothersome way of putting it.

I sort of found it by accident, I was googling agnostic and fallacy, as a starting point, as I was curious how to maybe identify a possible fallacy I perceive with some people’s take on the term ‘agnostic’

27

But if you understand the context of asking the god question and where we are, it seems easy to say it is impossible to know. For the theists, despite thousands and thousands of years of searching and arguing, not one single piece of empirical evidence suggest god(s). And for the atheists, as theists are wont to point out, well they haven’t looked everywhere, like that cave on Andromeda 6 or outside space and time or examined every possible argument or possible evidence. In light of these I suggest knowledge is impossible.

I’ll stop being agnostic the moment we have evidence either way. If that is unreasonable so be it 0:)

There may be one out there that is both provable (if true) and falsifiable (if not). In which case you cannot state that the god question is unanswerable, in which case you cannot, theoretically, claim to be agnostic.
Which is why in the face of zeus, yahwe and allah, I am not agnostic at all :)
I would counter that notion with this: Even if there is a provable and falsifiable religion, the agnostic can still remain agnostic towards all the religions that don't meet that criteria.
So what do we call someone who thinks (correctly) that we don't have an answer to the god(s) question nor that there is a (current) answer possible due to practical considerations I mentioned above?
28

When a theist says “I know god exists because of the bible” that person says he accepts the bible as truth, this qualification of truth is what gives them knowledge, as they claim revealed truth/knowledge, likewise, the atheist who say "I know and believe there is no god because of [emperical evidence] explaining a natural world only, you claim the observable, testable and provable as truth, which gives you knowledge for there not being a god.

Though, I haven’t come across an atheist who holds this very strong stance.

Agnostic - think/know :slight_smile:

What I’m interested in though, is there some fallacy for describing this view of “agnostic” as something like “because I can not know whether gods exist or not I’m a fence sitter, and cannot answer the question on whether I believe or not”

This “fence sitter” mentality is for me fallacious, as it could also mean that because you do not know, you simultaneously believe and disbelieve in gods - this to me is bollocks, and I can’t find anything describing this bizarre position.

One can reserve an opinion if one so chooses, but this is not always what people seem to mean when they describe themeselves sometimes as agnostic

29

There is nothing fallacious about reserving judgement; it does not imply simultaneously accepting both the true and false propositions. What would be fallacious, would be claiming 100% certainty based on empirical evidence or on the unsubstantiated assumption that a religious handbook/pope is infallible. Certainty would only be possible if the premises are necessary truths and the argumentation deductive. In the absence of such premises and argument, the agnostic position has merit. From an empirical perspective, the atheist would usually regard the god hypothesis as so unlikely, that the agnostic label becomes pedantic.

30

I think you may be conflating my explaining a theory, with me believing it holds water.

I was just trying to explain what I thought you’d misunderstood about the statement made, I don’t think you’re unreasonable whatsoever.

I think the best term would be “Cognitive dissonance”.

31

That’s much the point I attempted to convey earlier but which seems to have landed on fallow ground. We cannot presume to know the entire background behind a speaker’s or writer’s characterisation of him- or herself as an “atheist”, variously as an “agnostic”, unless s/he states this explicitly, and so we must interpret such expressions according to their common usage.

Really now, I don’t see what all the fuss is about.

'Luthon64

32

No, I am with you on that and truth be told I still struggle not seeing a contradiction between impossible to have knowledge and must have all knowledge to be able say that…

Let me paste your rephrase here:

The point is that you can't state the knowledge is impossible before you exhaustively understand all the god theories.
And then let me think about that some more before I respond. :D I instinctively want to use Heisenberg as an example here but not sure it is applicable as I intend.
33

you haven’t seen the heated discussions on various boards about this? >:D

34

Ok I’d like to way in at this point.

For me, I don’t have a belief in any of the religions on earth so that makes me atheist.

But there is some information that we don’t have any proof of. For in example we don’t know what led
to the creation of the universe, hence I’m agnostic in as much as I don’t know
will I ever learn the truth maybe, most likely not. Am I ok with that?, yes I am.

35

This is the point I was trying to make - I still perceive [some] people to argue that they cannot believe nor disbelieve when using agnosic in this way,
I certainly have no problem if their position is to reserve an opinion, as I said earlier, but this would seem not the position “agnostics” take sometimes.
I am still unconvinced about there being no grounds for fallaciousness

36

just to clarify, this

If that is unreasonable so be it 0:)
wasn’t aimed at BoogieMonster’s post but at the highlighted part of this:
If we examine the agnostic premise, we find that it is quite unreasonable. Agnosticism is based on the notion that we can have no knowledge on the god question. But for this to be true, the agnostic must know all possible arguments of atheism and theism,

I could have been clearer :slight_smile:

and BM condensed this to

The point is that you can't state the knowledge is impossible before you exhaustively understand all the god theories.
and here I'll stick to the reasons I gave why I think knowledge (on this question) is impossible.

To the theist who tells me s/he knows in his or her heart that God exists and loves her/him, I simply respond to this is not knowledge. This is wishful thinking.

And when the theist accuse me of ‘having great faith that god does not exist’ I simply say I really don’t know, I in fact lack faith that god(s) exist. It takes no faith whatsoever.

And to the atheist who says ‘I know no God exist’ the theists response is adequate. No atheist knows or can know. Not in the sense that I use knowledge here.

I think it is *Plato that said knowledge is “justified belief” and I have recently in a similar argument seen it improved to “well justified belief”. The theist in your case here may think s/he is justified in this belief but knowing what we know about the Holey Babble, this doesn’t hold water.

So the atheist (and indeed then my own position) may be that the fact that every single answer we have ever successfully answered requires no god(s) and that every single argument made for the existence of god is laughably inadequate, and that no positive evidence for the existence of god(s) exists, are all factors in being able to state that we know no god(s) exist. And yet… yet… would this be well justified to declare no God outside space and time exists? Which is where a little bit of the theist god(s) find themselves every time we want to pin em down completely. So, god, escape to outside time and space and and immaterialism and invisibilsim, you are irrelevant in my life there and then, except through these dammed believers and their insistence to shove their morality down my throat at all opportunities. That is what irks me about this whole question in the first place.

and now I’ll pour myself a glass of this cab sav merlot that is winking at me and not bother to solve all the worlds problems for the rest of the weekend.

You all have good one, you godless infidels :smiley:

ETA: *as I closed this I opened wiki and searched for knowledge.
In philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology; the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as “justified true belief”, though “well-justified true belief” is more complete as it accounts for the Gettier problems. However, several definitions of knowledge and theories to explain it exist.
I highlight the part that caught my eyes. Lets go with that when I speak of knowledge then :stuck_out_tongue:

37

Gesondheid!

38

No need for agnosticism. I know there is no God. I’ve checked all the cupboards.

39

People who drink cab sav merlot cannot be called unreasonable. (This is called setting myself up for a true-scottsman)

... you godless infidels

Flattery will get you nowhere.

40


http://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/145-How-to-know-where-you-stand.jpg

"That's if you believe there is a hell, or know there is a hell, or believe, but don't really...[b]Oh God I give up[/b]."

LOLZ ;D ;D
'Nuff said ;D ;D
I love this site, funny as hell ;D