Agnostic Theism?

CS

Its well and fine to juggle human 'knowing' with human logic.
You can make anything 'up in the air'.

Please explain the organisation/logic/structure in reality that allows you to reason.
Reason is a humungously complex process .
Do you suggest the complexity of reality that allows the complexity of reason.
Is a product of random events?

If our universe, a mere 14 billion years old, could produce life, a self sustaining anti-entropic system.
By random chance.
Them occam would say someone flipped a coin and got heads 10trillion
times in a row.
No?
Occam says no. The observable universe is organised. And it didnt do it
by itself.

This thread is called agnostic theism.
Obviously you are not living up to your name.
Common sense observation supports all that occam has said.

Occam

 

Okay, I have time to waste, so I'll try to come up with something. Whether anyone else wants to swallow it is another issue. Frankly I don't expect much.

God is the tendency of organized systems to retain or increase their current level of organization.

That's once again a mouthful, because I don't really have a definition for 'organization' or 'level of organization'. There is a principle in thermodynamics whereby systems not subject to net energy input increase their randomness with time (second law of thermodynamics), and God is a set of processes that decreases randomness. There is a mathematical definition of 'randomness', which I don't have available. It's like dropping twenty marbles into a box and not expecting them to all come to rest in a neat pattern. Gas diffusion or the process of dissolving a compound in a liquid solution are examples.

Living things tend to do spectacularly organized things, like protein synthesis or formation of cell nuclei, or replicating DNA. How this gets done I have no idea. A biology student told me that cellular enzymes have specific shapes to run around building things, and that their movement is due to thermal energy, but how do they 'know' what to do next?

Dead things sometimes organize themselves into (far less complex) patterns in certain situations, such as crystallization.

You see why I'm reluctant to try to define God. I can list a few things that God is not, in my book.
- God is in no way anthropomorphic. It has no gender.
- God does not have knowledge of or interest in human affairs.
- God does not make value judgements such as benevolence.
- God is a set of processes that are in no way supernatural.
- God is not like anything in the Judaic Old Testament, the Christian New Testament, or the Koran.
- God as a set of processes or principles is too general to have measurable attributes such as location, velocity, charge, mass, energy, duration.

How's that for starters?

 

Just plug in a caveat that unicorns (or whatever) are judges of the afterlife. Outside of pleading to tradition, there is no way to falsify it.

You did completely convince me of that--the bolded section. I half-heartedly believed it in the past, but your argument for it solidified it in my thinking.

 

All signs point to yes.

If you flipped a coin 10 trillion times in a row, then you would get a unique result. Some would say that result had an infinitesimal chance of happening--2 to the 10 trillionth power (I'm not doing the math on that). But that would be incorrect unless one believed that said result was somehow predicted or predetermined-ly necessary. It wasn't. To assume that it was is to promote mysticism. The chances that a result would happen is exactly 1 to 1 and not 1 to 2 to the 10 trillionth power.

Outside of your own will to believe that, there is no reason to assume so.

Well, that and a hat-load of unfounded assumptions.

 

That would take a doctoral thesis. What you're asking of me isn't reasonable. All I'm asking you to do is clarify a few points you made on reasoning. They are:

"1. Who can show one cannot know such a thing exists.?" when talking about non-existent objects.

Please explain, because if an object doesn't exist, then why does it matter who's doing the showing? This is a semantic problem, not an epistemic one.

No. I don't even understand what you mean by that.

But what does this have to do with the way people reason?

 

Well, that doesn't seem right. For example, it seems to me that a system can retain organization without being conscious, and consciousness is one of those things that God should probably have, or else he's not much of a God. You mention crystals. Viruses are tricky too. What's wrong with the more traditional definitions?

It's a lot. I find it interesting that you're so against the idea of an anthropomorphic God. Of course, you can call "God" whatever you want. It's just a definition, after all. But anyway, way back in your first post, you asked me to define "God," implying that the whole matter turns on this definition. Now that "God" is definied, what of it?

 

Anthropomorphic belief systems are interesting, for sure. My tricycle was interesting too, but I outgrew it. I'm speaking to grown-ups now. I hope.

Myself when young did eager frequent Doctor and saint, and heard great argument

About it and about, but evermore,
Came out by the same door as in I went. -- Khayyam

​

Consciousness is a slippery, but important, term. Are oysters conscious? How about goldfish? Shrimp? Jellyfish? Ants? Viruses? Let's say that in my primitive God-definition (which I laugh at myself), a virus is a system that tends to increase its level of organization, that is, survive and reproduce. Then a virus is an instance of this Godlike process. Note that I didn't drag in the consciousness problem in my previous posting.


Maybe I am not a single entity, but a cluster of entities. If viruses are single entities, and the microphage cells in my blood streams wage war on them one to one, doesn't that make microphages single entities? Does an HIV pray to God for help when it is struggling against a microphage?



We humans do have a survival instinct. Go to a bridge over a very deep canyon. Pretend to yourself for a moment that you are going to jump. You will experience, I think, a primal fear. Your body will signal to your thinking brain that jumping to your death is not a good idea. Is this signal an instance of this God-like process I have tried to point to with my primitive definition?

So let us not talk false now. The hour is getting late. -- Dylan


​

*********************​

See also E. J. Pratt's poem, "The Truant", at http://www.library.utoronto.ca/canpoetry/pratt/poem3.htm ​

​

 

I'm going to take this opportunity to reply to some posts that I, rudely, did not have a chance to reply to, because of a lack of time.

3DJay quotes Thomas Huxley, who many consider to be the "father" of agnosticism. This is false. Agnosticism was around long before Huxley. Furthermore, Huxley does not have a monopoly on agnosticism, and even if he did, neither of the quotations is contrary to agnostic theism.

Agnostic theism, as I presented it, does not claim that belief in God is certain. In fact, I can't even say that the proposition, "God exists" is true, only that I am justified in believing that "God exists" is true. Nothing contrary to Huxley here.

Now, 3DJay is correct in saying that Huxley did not believe that any sentence is, in principle, unknowable. He was wrong. But I really don't see why this concerns us here.

Iconoclast:

Well, I really can't stop you from thinking that unicorns are judges in the afterlife. But I don't think that this is a proper definition, rather it is a contingent premise. One might consider "just" as a necessary property of "God," that is, God is analytically just.

Now, of course, you can define "unicorn" any way you like. But "All unicorns are just," does not seem like a good definition. Really, what necessary connection is there between unicorns and the property of being just?

As for the connection between truth and reality, that's probably for another post all together.

As for dirtydog's most recent post, sorry it's taking so long, but I need more time.

 

Huxley directed Agnosticism at the formation of belief process.

"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence"

Believe: to accept as true, genuine, or real

He did not direct Agnosticism at only those claiming absolute knowing.

"The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble."

He stated, a certain "gnosis" (with gnosis in quotes)...not "they had attained gnosis". He stated, more or less successfully...not "had successfully". And, in the first quote, opposed forming a belief. If Agnosticism is opposed to forming a belief, without satisfactory evidence, how can one both form a belief and be an Agnostic?

Just because, many people misunderstand Huxley's use of "insoluble", in the quote above, and turn Agnosticism into simply a statement of unknowability. He was refering to his personal abilities, not absolute knowledge. Turning Agnosticism into simply a statement of unknowability, allows it to become the redundant prefix, as in Agnostic Theism.

An -ism, by definition, is merely a statement of believing, not knowing. Stating you are merely a believer, that you're an -ist, and that you don't know, that you're "Agnostic", is redundant.

I'm an Agnostic, but this isn't me.....

http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77539

...and reducing Agnosticism to the above, is leading it towards absolute redundancy.




Peace

 

That is a specious argument, that only tells me why there are so many churches in Vegas. If spirituality were akin to a game of blackjack, I still would not accept that position as sound.
If God is real, why would our beliefs matter at all? Is he vain, insecure, or in need of yes men and brown nosers to support his self esteem? I say that I cannot see a chance I'll ever be able to comprehend what God is, if God is, as my limited mind is far too primitive. I don't believe we are doing a very good job understanding our own brains, something infinitely inferior to a creator being, or supreme entity. It is reasonable to believe what you find good, and let everyone else do the same, cuz we are all unique, therefore our views are bound to be also. Why is there a need to say someones wrong? We can all be right. Muslim, atheist, animist, etc. I call myself lightheartedly, an apathetic ignoramagnostic, cuz I don't know if God exists, nor do I care if there is, or what others believe.

 

Yes, but you're forgetting the "without logically satisfactory evidence" condition. Now, what exactly Huxley means by that is not clear. But if "logically satisfactory" means "justification," then Pascal's Wager is fair game because the argument is the justification itself.

"Gnosis" means "knowledge." Agnostic Theism, as I presented it, does not claim knowledge (i.e. true, justified belief) of God's existence; it only claims that such a belief is justified and says nothing about the truth condition. The "satisfactory evidence" you are inquiring about is Pascal's Wager, which is the justification of God-belief. Belief-formation is okay, so long as there is some justification.

 

An agnostic is anyone one who claims that the existence of a god or gods is unknowable. Agnosticism says nothing about a person's belief in the existence of a god or gods; it only states that we cannot know of that existence.
A belief that we cannot know whether God exists is known as strict agnosticism and the belief that we do not know yet is known as empirical agnosticism.

Thiesm is anyone who claims the existance of god or gods is known.
Theism claims 500 different knowings of god and thus cancels out any true
basis for knowing.
A belief that we know god exists is known as strict theism.
There is no empirical theism. for no empirical justification for it has ever been seen.
for belief and empiricism have no causal connection.

Occam

 

Very clever.

I think that the idea is that God-belief is supposed to be for our benefit, not God's (obviously). The idea is that God-belief makes salvation possible, and that God-belief makes ethics imperative, not just polite suggestions.

The matter has nothing to do with our brains, just reason. If there is a God, then we can certainly use reason to find out some things about him. For example, God can't both have a property and lack it at the same time. That's just true of any object because it's a rule of logic. Beyond things like that, we can say very little about God, if he exists.

Because people's beliefs can be wrong, and there's no sense in believing something that's demonstrably false. If the Jews are right, and Jesus was just a man, then the Christians are wrong in believing Jesus to be a member of the Trinity. While it's a great benefit of the liberal, demoncratic society we live in that one can believe whatever one wants, it's just political correctness on crack to think that all beliefs can be true, even outright contradictory ones. What you're advocating, whether you realise it or not, is that we all "agree to disagree," and thus give up the search for truth altogether, on pain of hurting someone else's feelings.

 

CS

jesus was always just a man.
No-one has yet shown that to be verifiably false.

Hundreds of millions BELIEVE he was more.
And once everyone believed the sun orbited the earth.
People believe what they want to believe.
Reality has very little to do with it.


Occam

 

Well, he actually clarified that, too.

"The justification of the Agnostic principle lies in the success which follows upon its application, whether in the field of natural, or in that of civil, history; and in the fact that, so far as these topics are concerned, no sane man thinks of denying its validity."

Don't see him mention the field of Theocracy.

"When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last."

An -ism doesn't claim knowledge, anyway. Stating you are both merely a believer and not a knower, is redundant. And, Pascal's Wager is not "evidence". You're now leaving out the word "evidence", from the statement, "without logically satisfactory evidence".


Peace

 

You say that with such certainty. Maybe all 6 billion of us are experiencing a unique life, that is different from any other, and that the Jews, Muslims, Christians, atheists, and all others are all believing what is right for them to believe. I can't say I know what is true for you, and feel no one can say they know what my truth is. Reality may be individual, you may not be right in thinking just because two sides disagree, one must be wrong. I can only state what I feel is right for and regarding me, and no one else.

 

First, I want to deal with Occam. I'm not saying that Jesus was God, and I never was. I'm saying that if the Jews are right, then the Christians are wrong. Period. Now we can move on.

I don't know how we got on to theocracy, but neither of those quotations clarifies, in the least, what Huxley meant by "evidence for" or "justification of" belief. They only deal with political and religious concerns, nothing in the least epistemological.

There's nothing redundant about claiming to be a believer and not a knower. I don't think you know what "redundant" means. If those claims were redundant, then "to know" and "to believe" would mean the same thing, which is clearly not the case.

Lastly, Pascal's Wager is a form of justification. It's an argument; and an argument is a justification of the conclusion of that argument. Pascal's Wager demonstrates (I think, successfully) that, if God is just (analytic judgment), and God-existence is possible (it is), then God-belief is more reasonable than God-disbelief. If that's not a justification, I don't know what is.

As for Blackguard, I find your truth-relativism thesis disturbing and scarcely worthy of a response. All I'll say on the matter is this: Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot all lived in their little "true for me" worlds, and, by your own thesis, who are you to tell them they were wrong?

 

They did so. Huxley was looking for a level of evidence that no sane man could deny. The other quote was to emphasize that he did not consider Agnosticism compatible Theism or Atheism. Where does Theocracy come in? Living your life, based on Pascal's Wager, is living your life based on the rule of God, as presented by God's messengers/priests.

Be*lief" (?), n. 1. Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.

A statement of "belief" is, by default, a statement saying you don't have absolute knowledge, but you believe it to be true anyway. You don't need to state, again, that you don't know. I repeat...stating you are both merely a believer and not a knower, is redundant.



Re*dun"dant (-dant), a.

1. Exceeding what is natural or necessary; superabundant; exuberant; as, a redundant quantity of bile or food.
2. Using more worrds or images than are necessary or useful; pleonastic.

Pascal's Wager is not "evidence" of anything. It is living your life, assuming there is a God, just like a Theist, with no evidence to back up such a belief. God is just? Just look at all the genocides God supports, in the OT. There's no evidence God is just. Pascal's Wager is not a proposition no sane many can deny.


Peace

 

Thanks, Occam, and I'll feel a lot better when you stop referring to yourself in the third person. Now how come the sun keeps setting in the ocean, but when it comes up again it's all dry?

**********************​

By the way, there's just this one little thing that comes up now and then. Death. Let's assume just for the sake of argument there is a God, and that it knows I exist. Then it has a contract out on me and I'm gonna get hit for keeps in about twenty years, give or take ten years. (I'm 59.) That ain't enough to make me get down on my knees and give thanks.​

More likely, the only 'God' out there is, as I said earlier, the tendency of complex systems to remain organized or to organize further. Fine for a while, but eventual the accumulated disorder within my cells overwhelms the order. My cells stop talking to one another. I die. My de-nucleated cells are quickly eaten by microorganisms. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria eat the remains. Plants grow on me and from me. It's not pretty. Life goes on within you and without you.​

Afterlife: Nice to think about when you've got chest pains in the middle of the night. True? Who cares (but I wouldn't bet good money on it). ​

 

religion is boring thats all there is to say - no ifs no buts - show us the money - wheres god?