Does Agnosticism Make Sense?

And agnostics act exactly the same as atheists since neither amend their actions because of their positive belief in a judging god. If either did, then they wouldn't be an agnostic or an atheist; they would be some type of theist.

 

congratulations.
i also have those.

but that still doesnt prove anything is impossible does it?

 

a square circle is impossible. the existence of a unicorn is improbable

 

Your question seems to negate your assertion.

 

So basically your saying "if you don't believe in god I'll lump you in to one category because people who don't believe in god act differently than people who do!"

Thats not accurate or logical but if it makes you happy run with it!

 

I'm not trying to be an arsehole, but who really cares?

 

By definition, an agnostic does not hold a positive belief in god(s). If they did, then they would not be an agnostic. They would be whatever religion they hold a positive belief in. The only difference between an agnostic and an atheist is the holding of a negative belief in god(s) as true--an agnotic does not while an atheist does.

If Bob says, "I will not smile on Thursdays because, if I do, Butro--the god of frowns--will smite me." This inference is that Bob believes Butro exists. By definition, this belief means Bob cannot be an agnostic. He's a Butron. If Bob didn't believe Butro exists, then he wouldn't be worried that Butro would smite him. However, Bob may choose not to smile on Thursday for a different reason.

When it comes to action, an atheist and an agnostic cannot act on a positive belief in god(s) by definition. Hey, there's one of those imposibilities, but it's one by definition, thus trivial.

 

Some philosophers would say that only statements that are false by definition are impossible. Things like "There exists at least one married bachelor," "2 + 2 = 5," and "x and not-x." I disagree with these philosophers; I instead believe that even logic is at least in part empirical. I have several reasons for believing this thesis, but I suppose only one is relevant to this conversation. That reason is, look at all the trouble we've run into, even just in this thead, by talking about possibility and necessity. It causes more problems than it solves. Arguably, all this nonsense started with Kant, who wanted to use our concepts possibility and necessity to find the limits of knowledge. But of what use is it when people admit the possibility of the existence of unicorns. Strictly speaking, of course, they are right. It is logically possible that unicorns could exist because there is nothing logically or semantically false about that proposition. But that still doesn't change the fact that unicorns don't exist. It is far more productive, I think, to avoid speaking of possibility and necessity and instead, focus on normative patterns of reasoning. If no good reason can be found to support belief in any given proposition, such as "There exists at least one unicorn," or "God exists," then the default position is disbelief. Isn't my way a lot simpler and a lot more reasonable?

I think you're also hinting on something I was trying to explain earlier, that atheists and agnostics act no different in praxis, although they may have different internal ideas about God.

 

the imagination can put together different ideas such as gold and mountain, coming up with a golden mountain or likewise, a unicorn. These are possible but belief needs to be grounded in a lively perception which the perceiver feels more strongly than those productions of the imagination

 

Well, that's what all major philosophers from Descartes to Kant said. The trouble is that that distinction between what is internal and what is external to the mind tends to get blurred in the process, leading to idealism, phenomenalism, or the idea that substance is "Something I know not what," as Locke put it.

Those philosophers would say, roughly, that a proposition is "possible" if and only if it is neither (1) logically false nor (2) false by definition. This is not nearly as intuitive or straight-forward as it seems because, as Quine proved, there is no non-circular explaination of what it means for a proposition to be "false by definition," or "true by definition," for that matter. So, "analyticity" and "syntheticity" are incoherent. And since these philosophers define "necessity" and "possibility" in terms of analyticity and syntheticity, then these terms must be incoherent, too.

So, while it may merely be a contingent fact that God does not exist, it is still nonetheless a fact.

 

common Sense I agree that we should try to steer clear of what is 'possible' when talking about beliefs. Anybody should be able to tell the difference between products of the imagination and perceptions. Although in some religous experiences and drug induced states the lines may become blurred. What is 'real' anyway? I deny the externality of relations.

 

And when doing philosophy, theology and metaphysics in particular. And that's the whole point. Every agnostic knows that God doesn't exist. He just gets caught up in his thoughts about infinity and omnipresence and doesn't realise that his position amounts to nothing more than saying, "There is no good reason to believe that God exists nor will there ever be such a reason, but God still could exist. So, I can't say if God really does exist or not," which is nonsense because if there is no good reason to believe that something exists, then there are good grounds for disbelief.

 

=P
thats mean. it just sounds nice because you used big words.
W/e, who cares?
you believe what you want, i will believe what i want.
sorry if i offended you in any way.

 

An agnostic can hold a positive BELIEF in god. By definition an agnostic just acknowledges that there is no PROOF to support or deny that belief. So an agnostic can not claim to KNOW there is a god. But to believe and to know are different things. As crazy as it may sound, its more similar to christianity then you think. Belief without proof is faith. So an agnostic can believe in god and have the belief powered by faith just like a christian. But that doesn't make his god christian. Nor does it make the agnostic a christian. Nor does it make him an atheist. Christians usually take it a step further and acknowledge that they "feel gods presence" or that god "speaks to them" in some way. These other claims become structural support for there Christian FAITH.

 

I used no big or obscure words.

The only thing that offends me is intellectual dishonesty. If you believe in cause and effect, then you believe in impossibility; some effects are impossible from some causes, e.g., when typing my response, I sat in front of my monitor with my computer on, navigated to this page, and used my mouse and keyboard to input the response. Why? Because these would be the necessary steps needed to achieve the end. Going out to the garden, starting my feet on fire, and having a 300-pound Bolivian woman named Lupe hammer my hands flat with a rubber mallet wouldn't be the necessary acts to respond to your thread. The garden act's effect is not having my response magically pop into existence here. I could later, assuming I live, take the necessary steps to create this response. But just take a guess as to what they would be?



In fact, any effect has a very narrow possibility of cause. If that weren't true, then it would be impossible to achieve any end. All acts would be random and arbitrary.

 

How are they different? Without invoking "the public", I believe that you will find it impossible to deliniate the two.

How does a neural path of belief differ from a neural path of knowledge? I'll await a convoluted answer.

 

The answer has nothing to do with psychology. Knowledge corresponds to the state of affairs. That is not necessarily the case with belief. Now, it's granted that I'm invoking "the public," if by "public" you mean the opposite of "private," but there's no reason why I can't. It's not question begging. So, you're in no position to claim that it is a fallacy to "invoke the public." If I am mistaken, then please tell me what fallacy I'm guilty of comitting.

Imagine if this were not the case. I could believe, "If I eat this berry, then I will get sick," upon coming across some unfamiliar fruit in the woods. Say I decide to eat the berry anyway. I do not get sick. Now I believe, "If I eat this berry, then I will not get sick." One of these propositions must be true and the other false, since the latter is the negation of the former. So, one of these beliefs is knowledge and the other is not. But you say that there is no distinction between belief and knowledge. So, your position amounts to saying that two or more logically inconsistent beliefs are consistent, which is false by definition.

 

Agnostics may have no evidence to support the existance of God, but if they trust others, then they accept that theists are no less intelligent than atheists, and that it is possible that the millions of folks who swear they have seen a miracle might not all be liars.
Atheism is a belief that there is definitely no God.
And I have no problem with their belief.
But agnostics are more like me. I don't know. And I am willing to say so.

 

Ok.

That sounds more like the correspondence theory of truth, which is a metaphysical theory and not an epistemic theory.

To believe something is simply to hold it, the belief, as true. This "holding somehting to be true" can be neither true nor false. If Bob says that he believe the world to be cubical and is not lying, then Bob believes the world is cubical. His belief simply is. There is no truth or falsity about it. However, if Bob creates a statement that the world is cubical, then that is a different ball game. Bob is now proposing a fact for scrutiny by others. The others decide whether Bob is right or wrong. Most of the time a correspondace theory of truth can be used sometimes, however, it cannot because the factual claim does not corrspond to an existent--something that can be studied.

Belief is personal. Knowledge is nothing more than the concensus of a belief, expressed as a factual claim, as true between individuals. This group of individuals may be right, they may be wrong.

I never said it was a fallacy. Beliefs are personal, knowledge is public.

You're blurring metaphysics and epistemology.

The firing of neural pathways in my head do not differ whether or not I say an idea in my head is a belief or is knowledge.

Um, no.

 

But you can PROVE SOME beliefs are true can't you? You believe its 80 degrees out and you look at a thermometer to verify your belief. But theists claim to KNOW god exists and using Christianity for example, claim they use FAITH to falsely verify this belief. An agnostic could believe in god but could not prove god exists.....therefore that agnostic can not claim to KNOW that god exists.