[FCP]

Okay, so the agnostics reasoning goes something like this: If X has not been proven or disproven then I don't know(how can I know?). I don't know because X has neither been proven or disproven. Besides the circularity, and obvious contradiction of knowing that you don't know, what do you think of agnosticism? Avowedly atheistic people accuse agnostics of being atheists that won't admit it. Theists accuse them of many things as well. But is regarding "god" -- my obvious montheistic upbringing shining through -- as possibly existent, but suspending judgement until such time as "proof" comes forward, an irrational or cowardly position to take?

[Ymir]

Agnosticism is the belief of ignorance, saying we can know nothing. We have all the evidence we need, yet Agnosticism says it won't prove anything.

[FCP]

Agnosticism is the belief of ignorance, saying we can know nothing.

The irony of course being that if you know that you know nothing, you do in fact know something, assuming of course that nothing is in fact something.

We have all the evidence we need, yet Agnosticism says it won't prove anything.

Do tell, what is this evidence of which you speak?

[Lt. Spoonman]

holy shit man.... holy shit.... this is just creeping me out

[The Apostate]

Copout.

When you get right down to it, there's no absolute way of knowing ANYTHING. At some level, you have to make some metaphysical assumptions, and move on. Agnosticism is the position of the chronically indecisive, and, really, who gives a shit about people who don't even have the guts to stake out a position?

[Proctor]

I like Descartes' thinking, in that the one thing you can be sure of is your own existence; to think presupposes a thinker. His greatest quote, "I think therefore I am." I'm looking forward to reading Meditations as soon as I find the time.

[FCP]

I'm much more of an empiricist myself, and don't buy alot of his a priori stuff, but some of what he says makes complete sense.

[Boondock Saint]

Actually ... I dont even know if I actually exist ... or if I am just some brain fart in some oafs dream ... for all I know I am dirt under the finger nail of life ...

Besides ... what does existence actually mean? We will all die one day, the planet we inhabit and think of as so important will cease to exist and the very galaxy that our pathetic little rock is such a small part of will itself be smashed into thousands upon thousands of fragments ...

So liek the old saying about the tree in the woods ... if mankind is destroyed before anyone else knows then did we really ever exist?

[jaakko]

I like Descartes' thinking, in that the one thing you can be sure of is your own existence; to think presupposes a thinker. His greatest quote, "I think therefore I am."

"I think therefore I am" is Solipsism, which is Agnosticism. Though it is quite extreme Agnosticism, it's still inconsistent.

Consistent follower of agnosticist gnoseology doesn't even accept the statement "I think therefore I am", because it includes the presumption that thinking prerequisites existence. To that quoted sentence a consistent agnosticist asks: 'How can you be absolutely sure? How can you be absolutely sure you couldn't think without existing? How can you be absolutely sure it's you who's thinking? How can you have true knowledge of the logics, which reflect the objective reality, of which you can't have knowledge? You can't be sure objective reality even existed!'

[Tam]

First lets be very be very where that agnosticism as laid down by Huxley refers to the concept of God alone. Its about pondering whether we can KNOW if there is a God or not.

"The irony of course being that if you know that you know nothing, you do in fact know something, assuming of course that nothing is in fact something."

I dont think that is what any agnostic claims. Its just when you ask him if he knows whether there is a God or knows if there is not a God, he'll just shrug his shoulders and say "I dont know".

Reasons why one might hold an agnostic position. There doesnt appear to be any absolutely deductive proof or disproof of God. God by his nature is outwith science so you cant use rules of science to either prove or disprove him either, simply because they will not apply.

Basically as a person, ask yourself if you KNOW there is a God. If you answer yes, you are a theist, if you answer that you KNOW there is not, you are an athiest, if you answer you dont know either way, than you are agnostic. Of course within this you get varying forms, for some people it is a very individual thing, that yes they just profess ignorance about this issue where so many claim knowledge. For others its a position where they dont believe ANYONE 'knows' if there is a God, because no-one can possibly have sufficient justification for claiming this knowledge.

And I dont see why anyone MUST take a position, its not like this has vast implications on a daily basis (unlike taking a position as to whether or not the sun exploded 1 minute ago and so you only have 3mins to live) so just let them be.

I cannot possibly see how would be a 'cowardly' position to take, what makes you think so?

The Apostate in particular...
"Agnosticism is the position of the chronically indecisive, and, really, who gives a shit about people who don't even have the guts to stake out a position?"

I hold positions on MANY things. You want to quiz me about politics, science, philosophy, ethics, I'll give you a shit load of opinions, but when discussing something like God, I'll be damned if I need toss a coin and make the outrageous claim that I do or dont know if he exists based on that.

[Proctor]

Eh? What's a empiricist or a priori? Same goes for Solipsism.

As for being in someone's dream, then you still exist in the dream. Existance and physical existance are different things.

As for all your questions Jaakko, I guess I'll just have to wait until I've read Meditations before I can answer them.

[jaakko]

Proctor,

There are different interpretations, but basically 'Solipsism' is the philosophical view according to which 'my mind is the only mind that exists' or that 'my mind is the only mind of whose existence I can be sure of'. I oppose that view because the idea that 'I think therefore I exist' requires logic. If one is a consistent agnosticist (which actually is a gnoseological tendency in philosophy while it is mostly used by people to describe their stance on god/s) he couldn't take even logic for granted, because one developes logical thinking through interaction with objective reality, from which he makes generalisations known as logic. As no agnosticist cannot deny the possibility that his view of this reality was distorted or that the reality itself was 'distorted' or non-existent, he also couldn't make summations from his experiences to justify such logical thinking as 'existence is the prerequisite for thinking'.

As for being in someone's dream, then you still exist in the dream. Existance and physical existance are different things.

Only from the standpoint of philosophical idealism. How could I exist in someone's dream as a conscious individual instead of just that person's idea of me? Dream charachters being conscious personalities themselves contradicts materialist thinking to which I adhere. But it's all different from idealist or agnosticist (which usually more or less leans towards the former unless when it's completely eclectic) point of view (referring to my thoughts on logic written above).

...Hope I expressed my views understandably, being a bit tired...

[FCP]

What's a empiricist or a priori

Empircists -- including John Locke and David Hume -- believe that knowledge comes "a posteriori" or post experientially. In other words, if I bang my head of the roof going down a stairwell, the next time I will know not to jump down the last few stairs. For empiricists the existence or non-existence of things must conform to the principles of public verifiability. Not all that different from the positivist view of knowledge being exposed to the principle of falsifiability -- same thing really. "A priori" knowledge was/is believed by the likes of rationalists such as Rene Descartes. Basically "a priori" -- pre-experiental -- knowledge is knowledge that is, paradoxically, existent before I know it. So in the same stair situation if I bang my head off the roof, and know not to do it again, I'm merely remembering what I already knew, because that knowledge was with me before I experienced it.

I dont think that is what any agnostic claims. Its just when you ask him if he knows whether there is a God or knows if there is not a God, he'll just shrug his shoulders and say "I dont know".

No, I agree, that's not what they would SAY or acknowledge BELIEVING. However,

theist/atheist: Is there a god?

agnostic: I don't know

theist/atheist: Why don't you know?

agnostic: I don't know, becuase I don't know.

theist/atheist: So you don't know because you don't know?

agnostic: yes.

theist: So if you don't know because you don't know then how do you know?

agnostic: I don't.

[Tam]

FCP it is nowhere near such a clean split as we would like. Yes I accept your views of a posteriori and a priori, but just because Hume was an empiricist doesnt mean he rejects a priori knowledge at all. He knew where its limitations lay and new that beyond a certain point it was the scientific format of experience and inference that gave us the rest of what we 'knew'.

To your wee dialogue with an agnostic well you put words into the mouth of the agnostic where perhaps they do not belong.
This segment

"agnostic: I don't know, becuase I don't know.

theist/atheist: So you don't know because you don't know?

agnostic: yes.

theist: So if you don't know because you don't know then how do you know?

agnostic: I don't".

No one says they dont know BECAUSE they dont know. They dont know, BECAUSE they have seen insufficient reasoning and evidence to justify making a claim to knowledge in whether God does or not exist.

If I asked you: "Is there a watch sitting in front of me?"

Can you really either say yes or no and KNOW you are right? Or would your reply equally be "I dont know" because of the fact you have woefully insufficient information to gauge an answer. Now yes there either must be or there must not be a watch in front of me (in fact there is) but if you have dont have the justification to make a belief you dont have knowledge, so its perfectly acceptable to simply say "I dont know"

[FCP]

So if agnostics don't necessarily not know becuase they don't know are you prepared to say that agnostics don't know because they do know?

[Tam]

Haha, well I still think you are over complicating the issue. Would you agree with my assessment of the scenario regarding the watch, because if you do, then just replace the watch with god and you have their position.

But I suppose if you wanted to lay it out in the format,

"that agnostics don't know because they do know?"

Or alternatively it can be read as "If agnostics DO know then they do not know"

That is of the format 'P->¬P' which in formal logic is simply recognised as ¬P so it still works out

[FCP]

That is of the format 'P->¬P' which in formal logic is simply recognised as ¬P so it still works out

I don't necessarily disagree with you as it isn't necessarily an either/or choice. But I just like to be contrary sometimes. But do you care to explain the proposition formally?? I never went beyond the propostional basics like.....

1) ~A > [A v (T > R)]
2) ~R > [R v (A > R)]
3) (T v D) > ~R
4) T v D
------------------------
5) 4,3 -- modus ponens = ~R
6) 5,2 -- modus ponens = R v (A > R)
7) 6,5 -- disjunctive syllogism = A > R
8 ) 7,5 -- modus tollens = ~A
9) 8,1 -- modus ponens = A v (T > R)
10)9,8 -- disjunctive syllogism = T > R
11)10,5 -- modus tollens = ~T

~T

[Tam]

Yes being contrary sometimes can be entertaining

But this does fall well within propositional basics. Its simply that if a statement implies its own falsehood or a contradiction then the statement is false. Sometimes known as a destructive dilemma.

So if we take your point that "Agnostics don't know because they do know"

the let the positive statement "They do know" be P. and the negative statement they do not know must become ¬P.

We are assuming then

1) P
2) P->¬P

so very simply 1, 2 using MP gives

3) ¬P which is the statement that 'They don't know'.

Still I think we can circumvent this, because if you ask the Agnostic "Do you know {if there is a God}? " and they answer honestly 'no', then thats all that needs admitting, so you must convince them they are lying which might be a bit hard. Or just show them they are stupid and in fact there is a very clear unproblematic way to show that there is/is not a God.

I'd like to discuss propositional logic sometime, its rare to see it used in any depth.

[Anarchocommunist]

i personally beleive it's an easy way out. there needs to be a point in which you have to assert something. i personally suscribe to the philosophy (i forgot who's it is at the time) that basically states that if there is a god, that he is not a god worthy of worship because of the suffering and evil it lets exist. i personally deny the existance of any diety out of necessity. because god is a natural way out. if humans think that they have another better life ahead of them, then they are more willing to put up with oppression and opposition. i see religion as a tool of power.

[Proctor]

Anarchocommunist, believing in God and believing in heaven, or a second life or whatever are two very different things. I believe in the first, and I have no way of asserting the second. (You could argue that I also have no way of asserting the first, but we'll not get into that)

Jaakko and FCP, I'm sorry I didn't reply to you. I really did intend to, but I couldn't work out what to say without it sounding like complete crap. So I gave up. Anyway, thanks for explaining stuff.