Atheist to Agnostic

My beliefs are based on the law of probability, they require no faith at all.

 

i think there's a lot of ego involved, and fear

it's okay to just say i don't know

[i don't care either]

 

While true, as a defence of 'faith' as the term is used in a religious sense, this is useless and irrelevant. The scientific method allows us to investigate and understand with a degree certainty the type of reality that we seem to be inhabiting. Yes if you are talking about absolute certainty as to the fundamental assumptions we have to make - ie that the universe actually exists, that we are not simply brains in glass jars or aspects of some virtual reality - of course by definition we cannot be certain of these things. But as for an understanding the nature of the reality we seem to inhabit, we can build knowledge upon logical deduction and be fairly certain about the nature of this apparent reality entirely without faith.

If you want to characterise the leap we need to make to get beyond Cartesian scepticism as "faith" then do so, but it is a fundamental mistake to confuse this kind of faith with the kind required to escape logical reasoning beyond that point - ie the kind required to support supernatural beliefs. Really these two kinds of "faith" are so different that they require delineation as quite separate concepts. Participating in existence at all is to make the first kind of "leap" of "faith" but after that point faith is no longer required and is something which leads us away from the best and most robust understanding of ("apparent") reality we are capable of attaining. This is the only reality we can know and and science is the only way we have of knowing it. To call science 'just another kind of faith' is to fundamentally misunderstand the epistemological process.

That our scientific understanding is not based on absolute certainty that the universe exists, but simply on the assumption that the universe exists as it appears to, does not excuse the use of faith to justify beliefs which contradict evidence. Those that do this make not only the first kind of leap of faith but also the second, unnecessary kind.

 

lol there are some unusual definitions of Agnostic floating around.

Agnostic comes from the greek word for Knowledge, with the prefix A- meaning against or opposition to.

Essentially, an Agnostic is someone who thinks it is impossible to know whether or not god exists.

I often get described as agnostic, because I think it is silly to self-identify myself by what I don't believe in, and because I don't think the question of gods existence is relevant to human life.

I think Agnosticism is often seen as merely a "soft" form of atheism, but really it is a complete philosophical position in and of itself.
Someone can be Agnostic about anything, not just god.

Where I think Agnosticism falls down slightly, is in it's refusal to outright reject specific interpretations of god, rather than the general concept. I think several versions of the christian story are internally inconsistent,. and can be logically refuted using their own premises, and so I'm fairly comfortable saying that I actively disbelieve their claims.

 

Well as I said, there is faith, and on top of faith we can integrate logic. Some people fail to integrate logic and this makes the difference.

At any rate, something like the uncertainty principle is clear evidence that there are forces acting beyond our capability of representation in science.

I think of myself as a scientist, and I agree with taking the stance of science. But I think that there is only one functional type of 'faith', and people decide with all the information available to them, what to have faith in. Some people make huge leaps of faith, in fact it is natural for people to do this because it is natural for most people's 'information' to not include the teaching of science. And others have faith in only very likely things or things that everyone agrees on anyway, and perhaps they will fill in their knowlege with logic or reason from there.

So I never suggested Science was another 'faith' (a phrase which seems to bring up a third definition of the word). I am suggesting that even people who follow science have faith in something.

 

...yet. I'm not suggesting you're saying this, but there is no reason to suppose such examples are in principle beyond representation or understanding. It just means our models are far from complete - something obvious to anyone with any understanding of science and the scientific method. Many will jump on such examples of what we don't yet know and fill in the gaps with unfounded speculations, even 'certainties' delivered by faith. Atheism is a sceptical position which can include "don't know" / "don't yet know" as a valid response to such conundrums.

Agnosticism is closer to "can't know".

 

well 'in principle' (the uncertainty principle), it is beyond our representation. Perhaps, it could be understood... But until then all you can do is fill it in with 'speculations'

I would also like to point out that the sort of science that conflicts with most people's 'faith'. Evolution. Age of the earth. Mind is a brain function. etc. You might notice that none of these theories are observable phenomenons. Age of the earth is based on calculations that have been based on observations on a billionth of the scale. Evolution refers to phenomenon we cannot observe happening, and mind is a brain function.. well we don't know how the mind works so there is always that extra bit that could possibly be the soul.

this stuff is not a good representation of the bulk of work done under the 'scientific method'

Oh and I dont think Agnostic means 'cant know', it is literally 'without knowlege' and this is because we proclaim to have no knowlege of God (or other things of such nature). And remember this is 'gnosis' which has a sense of 'knowlege of truth'

An atheist is 'without theism'. So an atheist might believe in something else, or they might claim to know that god doesnt exist, etc. Its not that different to being Agnostic, they usually overlap. atheism rejects theism, and agnostics reject making grand assertions about things of large scale.

the main difference is that you can have an atheist who thinks they know that there is no God. When there could easily be a god, just not one that was anything like that of traditional religions... Or you could possibly have an agnostic who lived as if the world was designed, but made no assertions of what the case truly is.

 

Geology and evolutionary biology are some of the most robust and firmly established bodies of scientific knowledge, really the whole point is to extrapolate an understanding beyond what is directly observable on the human scale within one lifetime using evidence and logical deduction from that evidence. To say that our knowledge of that which is not directly observable is somehow more flimsy is to miss the point somewhat... Cognitive neuroscience is too young a field to be classed alongside the exceptionally well established other two just yet, but the rate at which progress is occurring in that field ought to lead us to speculate that it probably will be soon.

 

Actually, the 'scientific method' requires that you make observations. So, according to 'science', it is more flimsy, the more removed the observations are from the actual phenomenon you are studying.

anyway, geology and biology are whole schools of knowlege that most people agree with.
They are not synonymous with 'the theories of the age of teh earth' and 'evolution' which are theoretical rationalisations WITHIN those areas of science

 

The age of the earth and evolutionary biology / genetics are a very good example of what is done under the "scientific method" which is an entire epistemological process, the term embodying a whole raft of procedures from formulation of hypotheses, predictions, testing of predictions, experimental procedures, falsification, confirmation, peer review etc. The exceptionally well established bodies of knowledge you mention (age of the earth within geology and evolution within biology) are cornerstones of those disciplines. I actually said "evolutionary biology" not simply biology; indeed all modern biology is founded on the new synthesis of genetics and evolutionary theory.

Obviously both (indeed all) fields involve observations which confirm predictions made by the theory but to say that the science is more flimsy because they talk about things not directly observable by human senses within a lifetime is frankly to miss the whole point of science and the scientific method, much of which seeks to gain knowledge of precisely those things which are not directly observable by human eyes within a lifespan by reference to the evidence which is observable here and now. Observation is a key part of science, but it is not science, which is a body of knowledge and a process of gaining and testing that knowledge.

 

It is said that atheism is just another belief. Well, that is true, but being a belief is not the point. The point is how a belief is arrived at. This, I believe. Whoa! Anyway, I dont see any way that the existence of God can be established by argument or physical proof.

May I suggest that in the physical, objects are unigue in and of themselves. When human consciousness experiences objects, faculties such as imagination, memory and the mind's ability to abstract and categorize create the world of concepts to which I will refer to as the metaphysical. At least close to the classical definition. So we come to build concepts such as shape, color, size and higher concepts that pertain to work, ambition, etc. These are concepts because we understand them. However, there are objects in the metaphysical that are referred to as concepts that are, in fact, tagged with names that possess no definition, terms such as infinity, perfection and God. We really have no formal concept of these because they are beyond our conceptual grasp and may I suggest that the existence of God will not be argued for in a reasonable fashion. On the other hand, these concepts, not having formal definitions, are wide open. One can introduce any notion because there are no rules. It's like a discussion of how Santa Claus can manage to cover the entire world in one night. It may be fun mental, masturbation, but the premise is fictitious. If I'm remembering correctly, Jesus said something to the affect of coming to God as a child. I believe he was serious. Consider this, people way back when and a lot of people today believe that they apprehend another dimension of experience. This experience must be mystical because it lies outside of the physical and metaphysical.

I'm agnostic and I believe that atheists and theologians question the existence of God, but agnostics just accept God. We just don't define God. How's that for a bull shit way around something. Talk about mental masturbation.

Things that have caused a lot of people to doubt God have caused me to believe in God. I will proceed with a discussion, not an argument. As I stated before the existence of God cannot be established by rational argument, the concepts are just not there. Let's start by examining an empty concept mentioned above, infinity. Infinity cannot be comprehended by the human mind, for that matter, neither can one million or even smaller numbers, but let's do infinity. Why not? Imagine a volume, let's say a cubic meter, out there half way between our galaxy and the closest neighboring galaxy. There it is. How many light years is it from us? I haven't the foggiest, but as you're reading this, there it is, out there, an unimaginable distance from us. It is really there, cold, dark, soundless and it's been there for a long time. Think of the incredibly gargantuan distance that spans a galaxy and how that distance is dwarfed by the distances between the galaxies. Way out there at the half way point of our cubic meter of apparently nothing. Imagine clusters of galaxies. How far? The age of the universe is progressing and in all this time the distances that are involved here are??? And in all of that it is nothing to infinity. The concepts break down. At this point, that celebrated novelist, the imagination must give pause as it stares out to an indefinable abyss. Inspiration of belief in God? Nah.

Now let's test the human faculty again. Only this time let's introduce values and value judgment. Through my years of reading the newpapers I've always remembered two stories. I apologize for not knowing which papers or when, but neither one of the stories occurred here in Colorado so I think it might be safe to say that they were from the Associated Press. The first story took place in Chicago. A house, inhabited by ten children, caught on fire. The only one to escape alive was a seven year old boy who then ran back into the incinerated house in an unavailing attempt to rescue the others and, there in, perished.

The second story is that of a five year old in Detroit who was hung upside down out of a window far up in an apartment building. His two tormenters were a couple of eight year olds. The five year old was told that if he would join their gang they would not drop him. The five year old refused and was dropped to his death.

What can be said about these two? Well, I'm sure glad we know about them. It would be a shame if no one knew what had happened to them. Those kids sure were brave. I wonder if they really understood what they were doing. And is that it? Is that all?

But what about the other side? The boy in Chicago, I think, didn't stop to think about what the right thing to do was. If you've ever had a bullet wiz past your head or if you've ever gone balls-to-the-walls down a ski course you're not doing a whole lot of deep thinking. No past, no future, only now. I think that it was love that was the motivator there, but also I believe that his actions were truly selfless. Danger was unknown to him in those last moments of his life. What about the nobility? Such a courageous act. Did it all just end there? He ran back in and that was it. He died.

And the five year old in Detroit, does it matter if you're five or fifty? He was standing for a principle that he believed in. He believed that it was wrong to join a gang and it was as plain as that.

Doesn't this mean something? They were manifesting high moral principles. Isn't there something, indeed, that exists that's higher? Something that was actually touched by and, in turn, was touching these two. Something that exists in and of itself. Don't the actions of these two actually indicate a communion with something that's highter than we are? Sleep on it. Give it some thought and if you think about it long enough and hard enough the concepts will begin to break down.

The sky was overcast and a thick fog hung in the high valley. He stood on the black topped, deserted mountain road. A fine mist was caressing his face. He was gazing up through the orphic mist and up in the distance something was there. He couldn't quite perceive what it was. He could almost see it, but it was not quite visible. He stood there squinting. What was it? He couldn't quite grasp it, but there was definitely something there. Something quite real.

Proof of God? Not at all. But isn't there something there? Something that we've all known in our most poignantly questioning moments.

Oh, yea. Another reason I'm not an atheist is ya got nothing to talk about during sex.