Agnosticism in Doubt

Some agnostics claim that their philosophy is the only logically defensible position. This may be true, but it is also an inadequate philosophy to live by. It would be better for a person to jump back and forth between atheism and theism than to linger in paralytic agnostic doubt. There is some good to be found in the modesty and honesty of the agnostic position, but its lack of courage is disheartening and weak. Just as one should not go through life without taking risks, one should not adopt a philosophy that is scared to assert itself out of fear of being wrong.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Some agnostics claim that their philosophy is the only logically defensible position. This may be true, but it is also an inadequate philosophy to live by. It would be better for a person to jump back and forth between atheism and theism than to linger in paralytic agnostic doubt. There is some good to be found in the modesty and honesty of the agnostic position, but its lack of courage is disheartening and weak. Just as one should not go through life without taking risks, one should not adopt a philosophy that is scared to assert itself out of fear of being wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not fear of being wrong so your conclusion is wrong.

chez

[I'm ignoring the athiest/agnostic debacle]

[Matt R.]

What is wrong in saying "I don't know" when there is zero concrete evidence to support one view or the other? Not knowing the truth and thus not pulling an answer out of your ass just to have an answer is not "lack of courage". It's simple intellectual honestly. It's actually extremely arrogant (and stupid?) to pretend you have the answer to something when you really have no clue.

Your position is akin to someone reading a math proof, having no idea what the notation even means, then saying "I disagree with this" just for the sake of having an opinion.

why the need to decide.. especially if you leaning toward the atheism side? I think most atheists are at least roaming in the agnostic territory when they give even miniscule odds to a god's existence.

besides i think most agnostics just say they are to their religious friends so that they don't try to lecture them.

most agnostics are probably closet atheists

I'm always amazed when I hear this, what do you think agnostics are 'afraid' of? Adopting a commonly held position that nobody cares about or would think less of them over? That a belief may make life easier to lead is not sufficient reason to adopt it. It's about a pursuit of truth, adopting any position for any reason other than an honest belief that you've acquired that truth, shows a lack of intellectual integrity.

This is similar to the whole 'flip flopping' thing with politicians. It infuriates me that it's somehow become culturally bad to not commit to an answer when the information is unclear. That kind of skepticism and openness is an absolute requirement of intellectual integrity IMO, and generally a sign of intelligence. And I'm certainly not saying that any given a/theist can't be in a position where their viewpoint has that integrity, perhaps they've seen or realised something that I haven't. But for anyone who doesn't have any extra insight, and who has just chosen that position to commit to something or avoid being weak-willed - to me that is an idiotic reason to adopt a belief system.

It's certainly true that the life well led should involve risk taking, but that's concerned with actions, not academic positions. There is no black and white with most philosophical questions, but on the God issue, I suspect most agnostics would say we aren't even close to having access to the sort of info to decide.

I think a better alternative to agnosticism is to come to some sort of philosophical conclusion about god's existence (or lack thereof). (Since science won't do it, philosophy has to.) After coming to the conclusion for himself, he should live with it for a while, let it sink in, have faith in it. I'm not saying he should stop questioning it; on the contrary, he can only question it truly once he has lived with it. This is the only way to really know a philosophical position imho.

I am all for intellectual honesty. The only way to achieve this though is to experience the philosophy you hold. Agnosticism is afraid in the sense that it doesn't want to experience, it just sits outside and watches the show.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a better alternative to agnosticism is to come to some sort of philosophical conclusion about god's existence (or lack thereof). (Since science won't do it, philosophy has to.) After coming to the conclusion for himself, he should live with it for a while, let it sink in, have faith in it. I'm not saying he should stop questioning it; on the contrary, he can only question it truly once he has lived with it. This is the only way to really know a philosophical position imho.

I am all for intellectual honesty. The only way to achieve this though is to experience the philosophy you hold. Agnosticism is afraid in the sense that it doesn't want to experience, it just sits outside and watches the show.

[/ QUOTE ]
So how do I do this believing something I dont believe lark?

chez

not sure exactly what you mean, can you clarify the question?

[Lestat]

I'm still not sure what I am. Perhaps someone could help me identify myself? I've recently been called a "scoffer", but I don't like that term and don't think it fits.

I flat out don't believe there is a god. Is it possible there is a god? I would think it IS possible. I just don't think it's likely. In fact, I think it's so unlikely that I went from calling myself an agnostic to an atheist. Yet, I will still concede a god is possible. If ever given a reason to believe, I wouldn't deny God. It seems many non-believers take atheism to a religious level themselves. I don't advocate that. I have no problem with "In God we trust" on American coins, or "One nation under God" in the pledge, as a form of tradition and/or unity. I am not worried about my children's rights being violated in shcool over this or our country being unable to seperate church and state. In other words, I am not ANTI - God with a vengeance.

So am I waffling? Am I weak or wishy-washy? Am I an agnostic, or an atheist?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
not sure exactly what you mean, can you clarify the question?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont believe in god, your saying I should try out believing in god. I'm game, tell me how to do it?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still not sure what I am. Perhaps someone could help me identify myself? I've recently been called a "scoffer", but I don't like that term and don't think it fits.

I flat out don't believe there is a god. Is it possible there is a god? I would think it IS possible. I just don't think it's likely. In fact, I think it's so unlikely that I went from calling myself an agnostic to an atheist. Yet, I will still concede a god is possible. If ever given a reason to believe, I wouldn't deny God. It seems many non-believers take atheism to a religious level themselves. I don't advocate that. I have no problem with "In God we trust" on American coins, or "One nation under God" in the pledge, as a form of tradition and/or unity. I am not worried about my children's rights being violated in shcool over this or our country being unable to seperate church and state. In other words, I am not ANTI - God with a vengeance.

So am I waffling? Am I weak or wishy-washy? Am I an agnostic, or an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're in transition from someone who think they believe god is unlikely to someone who realises that this is meaningless and they simply don't believe in god because there's no reason to.

Its touch and go between this glory and you being seduced by the dark side of evidence.

chez

not necessarily. are you an atheist or an agnostic? if agnostic, try becoming either a theist or atheist, depending on whichever you lean closest to. If your skeptical nature prevents you from doing this easily, try reading philosophers on the side of the fence you are leaning to. Let them convince you, try to make yourself more flexible and open to their ideas. Try them on for size, so to speak.

If people have a hard time doing this, they must be very reluctant to come to a strong belief. Maybe that is psychological, but I'm sure they can change it with effort.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
not necessarily. are you an atheist or an agnostic? if agnostic, try becoming either a theist or atheist, depending on whichever you lean closest to. If your skeptical nature prevents you from doing this easily, try reading philosophers on the side of the fence you are leaning to. Let them convince you, try to make yourself more flexible and open to their ideas. Try them on for size, so to speak.

If people have a hard time doing this, they must be very reluctant to come to a strong belief. Maybe that is psychological, but I'm sure they can change it with effort.

[/ QUOTE ]
[I'm ignoring the athiest/agnostic debacle]

I dont lean and I have no trouble with forming strong beliefs. I've read about most ideas and philosophies (I am very old you know) and engaged with the ideas. I'm open to all rational arguments but hard as I try all my irrationalities are by accident.

chez

[Lestat]

I think what evolvedform is saying, is that deep down you must believe something. So just say it! Get it out and live it with it for a while.

I tend to agree with this. When someone says, "I don't know if there's a god". Well of course they don't! No one does. But what do you THINK? If you had to wager one way or another, where would your money be? Whatever side that is, go with it for a while and see how it feels.

I had queens today and didn't know if I was up against AA or KK. Eventually, I made a decision about what I believed and went with it.

I'm not directing any of this at you chezlaw, just that I see the importance of Evolvedform seems to be saying about making a decision. If for no other reason than one's own piece of mind.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think what evolvedform is saying, is that deep down you must believe something. So just say it! Get it out and live it with it for a while.

I tend to agree with this. When someone says, "I don't know if there's a god". Well of course they don't! No one does. But what do you THINK? If you had to wager one way or another, where would your money be? Whatever side that is, go with it for a while and see how it feels.

I had queens today and didn't know if I was up against AA or KK. Eventually, I made a decision about what I believed and went with it.

I'm not directing any of this at you chezlaw, just that I see the importance of Evolvedform seems to be saying about making a decision. If for no other reason than one's own piece of mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do believe something. Maybe it bears repeating.

1) There is no reason to believe in god
2) There is no way of proving god doesn't exists

The wagering analogy is bad. you didn't make a decision about what he had, you made a decision to call or not based on the probabilities you assigned to each possibility. This requires belief in a probability distribution for the various hands, there is no equivalent probability for the existence of god (and no equivalent decision to be made), when people (even really clever ones) assign an x% chance of god existing they're just making it up.

chez

Without question there is a subjective/irrational element to both extremes. If one is to adopt a faith (which atheism is) by being completely rational, they will not be able to do so. They of course can and should use rationality to a great degree. But we are living, mortal beings - not computers that live forever. So trying to find an absolute proof of the correct answer is foolish. Because we live lives and have experiences, there is another element; that is, the importance of this dilemma to our philosophy. We are subjective by nature and our philosophy demands this subjectivity.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Without question there is a subjective/irrational element to both extremes. If one is to adopt a faith (which atheism is) by being completely rational, they will not be able to do so. They of course can and should use rationality to a great degree. But we are living, mortal beings - not computers that live forever. So trying to find an absolute proof of the correct answer is foolish. Because we live lives and have experiences, there is another element; that is, the importance of this dilemma to our philosophy. We are subjective by nature and our philosophy demands this subjectivity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its nothing to do with absolute proof. I believe loads of things I cant prove.

It's about reasons to believe.

chez

[I'm ignoring the athiest/agnostic debacle]

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> he wagering analogy is bad. you didn't make a decision about what he had, you made a decision to call or not based on the probabilities you assigned to each possibility. </font>

I thought the analogy was spot on. The decision was pre-flop. Regardless of how I assessed the probablities the point is, I had to form a belief and go with it. Were queens worth playing or not?

If you set the probabilities for there being a god as very low, then let's face it... You're not a believer! If you think they are high, then you believe. Waffling around in the middle saying you're not sure, is a cop out. Name me one thing you CAN be sure of!

The reason to believe is that you are a human with the incredible ability to make a choice(forget determinism for a sec, you obviously can choose to believe or not). The ability to make this choice is a frightening and fantastic aspect of life that should not be wasted. What reason do you have for not believing? Resignation?

btw chez i don't mean to sound harsh or disrespectful of your views.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> he wagering analogy is bad. you didn't make a decision about what he had, you made a decision to call or not based on the probabilities you assigned to each possibility. </font>

I thought the analogy was spot on. The decision was pre-flop. Regardless of how I assessed the probablities the point is, I had to form a belief and go with it. Were queens worth playing or not?

If you set the probabilities for there being a god as very low, then let's face it... You're not a believer! If you think they are high, then you believe. Waffling around in the middle saying you're not sure, is a cop out. Name me one thing you CAN be sure of!

[/ QUOTE ]
There's no question I'm not a believer. Clearly I dont believe in god. I'm not sure how there could be any confusion about that. (I'm really confused as to how you think this is to do with me setting a low probability for god's existence)

As for poker, preflop or not is irrelevent, you decide QQ is good because you can assign probabilities to his hand and so deduce your hand is better on average (+ev to play).

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason to believe is that you are a human with the incredible ability to make a choice(forget determinism for a sec, you obviously can choose to believe or not). The ability to make this choice is a frightening and fantastic aspect of life that should not be wasted. What reason do you have for not believing? Resignation?

btw chez i don't mean to sound harsh or disrespectful of your views.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sound as harsh as you like. I don't believe because I've no raeson to, its really as simple as that. Nothing frightening or fantastic involved and no resignation. I do believe that those who believe also have no reason to and that many who say they believe dont actually believe.

The only thing I'm resigned to is the athiest/agnostic debacle and that someone will bring up Pascal's wager yet again.

I've tried believing that if I look at your avatar long enough the hands will disappear but I just can't persuade myself its true.

[Edit: Its been of general agreement on this board that you can't chose what to believe (nothing to do with free will), you claim you obviously can, I believe you're wrong].


chez

I think the point here is that some people can't just 'choose' to believe in something. This seems to be something fundamental to a personality type, wired, I don't know what - but speaking personally it's just not an option. I'm majorly into Philosophy of religion, I've read most of the views, I've given them due consideration - but all that I can conclude from that is that we are nowhere remotely close to having any proof for or against god.

Some people probably can choose to believe in something without evidence, I can't, it's just not in me. And for what it's worth, for all my personality traits I'm not particularly keen on, I really like that one - I think that kind of natural skepticism is extremely important to intellectual integrity.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Clearly I dont believe in god. I'm not sure how there could be any confusion about that. (I'm really confused as to how you think this is to do with me setting a low probability for god's existence) </font>

I did say make sure to say:

<font color="green">I'm not directing any of this at you chezlaw, just that I see the importance of Evolvedform seems to be saying about making a decision. </font>

I've read enough of your posts to know where you stand. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the point here is that some people can't just 'choose' to believe in something. This seems to be something fundamental to a personality type, wired, I don't know what - but speaking personally it's just not an option. I'm majorly into Philosophy of religion, I've read most of the views, I've given them due consideration - but all that I can conclude from that is that we are nowhere remotely close to having any proof for or against god.

Some people probably can choose to believe in something without evidence, I can't, it's just not in me. And for what it's worth, for all my personality traits I'm not particularly keen on, I really like that one - I think that kind of natural skepticism is extremely important to intellectual integrity.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree 100%.

Except with the suggestion that some people can chose what to believe. They believe without evidence because they are credulous not because they chose to.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
Some people probably can choose to believe in something without evidence, I can't, it's just not in me. And for what it's worth, for all my personality traits I'm not particularly keen on, I really like that one - I think that kind of natural skepticism is extremely important to intellectual integrity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I alluded to the personality trait thing in another post and I agree there is probably truth to it. However, I disagree with the intellectual integrity part. There is more to philosophy than rationality. There is subjectivity; you cannot truly know a position until you've lived it.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Clearly I dont believe in god. I'm not sure how there could be any confusion about that. (I'm really confused as to how you think this is to do with me setting a low probability for god's existence) </font>

I did say make sure to say:

<font color="green">I'm not directing any of this at you chezlaw, just that I see the importance of Evolvedform seems to be saying about making a decision. </font>

I've read enough of your posts to know where you stand. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I hadn't realised the bit abouit it not being about me was being carried forward.

The analogy with poker is still bad /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The ability to make this choice is a frightening and fantastic aspect of life that should not be wasted.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only f &amp; f if you give it some discernible chance to be true. I know a lady who calls herself an agnostic ( I call her an umm-nostic) because if asked she just shrugs and says "well, umm, could be or it could be 3 drunken aliens did it on a dare in chem class."

It's not f &amp; f anymore than wondering if we'll find the 13th planet. It just doesn't matter to a lot of people, what would change even if they forced themselves to say yea or nay?

luckyme,
If I thought I was wrong, my mind would have changed.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I alluded to the personality trait thing in another post and I agree there is probably truth to it. However, I disagree with the intellectual integrity part. There is more to philosophy than rationality. There is subjectivity; you cannot truly know a position until you've lived it

[/ QUOTE ]

The bold part is another personality based concept. I was working on some policy papers the other day with a community leader and they shrugged at one point and said, "It's just words." I know them well, and it's not like they meant "I'm not going to follow the policy, so write what you want". They meant, "concepts and abstract ways of looking at things are not real, the only real thing is action and the direct results of it.". I think that is true for 73% of the population.

[ QUOTE ]
[Edit: Its been of general agreement on this board that you can't chose what to believe (nothing to do with free will), you claim you obviously can, I believe you're wrong].

[/ QUOTE ]

then why are we bothering to argue this? If you do end up changing your mind, (from the determinist view) it will not be because of this discussion and your rational thought. Is this any kind of explanation at all? Why think about this at all if you don't have a choice? (BTW, I'm aware of the counter-arguments and I don't agree with them. I'm still looking into it and am pretty undecided on this issue).

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[Edit: Its been of general agreement on this board that you can't chose what to believe (nothing to do with free will), you claim you obviously can, I believe you're wrong].

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]

then why are we bothering to argue this? If you do end up changing your mind, (from the determinist view) it will not be because of this discussion and your rational thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

You believe when you believe, and you always believe 100%. It's not about determinism, it's about the nature of belief..in anything - what time it is, how far you are form NY. You'll believe what you believe and you'll be 100% sure of what you believe. There is no other way.

luckyme,
If I thought I was wrong, my mind would have changed.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I've tried believing that if I look at your avatar long enough the hands will disappear but I just can't persuade myself its true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't try too hard, chez. I think they are fake anyway.

RJT

EvolvedForm,

To me you are implying that you have more respect for someone who "jumps to conclusions" than someone who objectively evaluates evidence (from which the answer may be, undoubtably, "inconclusive").

maybe it is an exciting way to live, I just hope you are not a high-court judge or something similar.

Also, and this has been mentioned by other posters...

You suggest I try "believing" theism for a while. Do you see why this is impossible without a good reason too, because I would be kidding myself and therefore not really trying anything?

[soko]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason to believe is that you are a human with the incredible ability to make a choice(forget determinism for a sec, you obviously can choose to believe or not). The ability to make this choice is a frightening and fantastic aspect of life that should not be wasted. What reason do you have for not believing? Resignation?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all you are assuming way too much. You assume that determinism is irrelevant or at least can be disregarded, when in fact it is the ultimate question, more relevant to the cosmic nature of your existance than god. You assume that the ability to decide is "frightening and fantastic" which is far too subjective of a statement to make an argument for. And you assume that wasting this aspect of life is bad, why is passing on your ability to decide not just as facinating? Finally you assume that your opinion matters when in fact it does not.

[Lestat]

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "I don't know", but there IS something wrong with being unable to form an opinion one way or another.

Any time you are served food you don't really know if it has been poisened, but you usually have enough evidence (or lack thereof), to form an opinion about whether it is safe to eat or not.

"It's actually extremely arrogant (and stupid?) to pretend you have the answer to something when you really have no clue."

Again, we don't need to pretend we know the answer to something to form an opinion. Clue? Now that's something we DO need! I'm not sure why you say, "when you rally have no clue". There are many, many clues to whether or not you should believe in God. How you intrepret them (or the lack of them), is what determines your belief. I still maintain that, "I don't know" is a ok, but "I don't have an opinion", or, "I don't know what I think", are copouts.

You clearly misunderstood most of my argument. If that's my fault, I apologize.

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] The reason to believe is that you are a human with the incredible ability to make a choice(forget determinism for a sec, you obviously can choose to believe or not). The ability to make this choice is a frightening and fantastic aspect of life that should not be wasted. What reason do you have for not believing? Resignation?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all you are assuming way too much. You assume that determinism is irrelevant or at least can be disregarded, when in fact it is the ultimate question, more relevant to the cosmic nature of your existance than god. You assume that the ability to decide is "frightening and fantastic" which is far too subjective of a statement to make an argument for. And you assume that wasting this aspect of life is bad, why is passing on your ability to decide not just as facinating? Finally you assume that your opinion matters when in fact it does not.

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

You seem very confused as to the nature of philosophical argument. It appears that your only critique of my argument is that it is an opinion. If we reduce philosophical debate to include only those things we can all agree on, we would no longer have philosophical debate.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[Edit: Its been of general agreement on this board that you can't chose what to believe (nothing to do with free will), you claim you obviously can, I believe you're wrong].

[/ QUOTE ]

then why are we bothering to argue this? If you do end up changing your mind, (from the determinist view) it will not be because of this discussion and your rational thought. Is this any kind of explanation at all? Why think about this at all if you don't have a choice? (BTW, I'm aware of the counter-arguments and I don't agree with them. I'm still looking into it and am pretty undecided on this issue).

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll try a bit harder tonight. My response to you was to gently suggest you were making a conceptual mistake. Choosing to; discuss philosophy, read other people ideas, try to imagine what the world would be like under different sets of assumptions etc are all things I value - to that extent we agree. [we could discuss whether choosing to do these things is a matter of free-will or determinism but thats a beside the point here].

What is to the point is that its acts that are the focus of the free-will debate not beliefs and its acts that we choose not beliefs. This is where your argument goes wrong and its why your concluded charge against athiest is mistaken.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
why your concluded charge against athiest is mistaken.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, hold on a sec. I am an atheist. Maybe you meant agnosticism.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why your concluded charge against athiest is mistaken.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, hold on a sec. I am an atheist. Maybe you meant agnosticism.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is the athiest/agnostic debacle. Its been discussed many times, an athiest is someone who doesn't believe in god but there are many types of athiest and there is not enough general agreement to make these words anything but hopeless.

linky (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=3610726&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb=5&amp; o=&amp;fpart=1&amp;vc=1)

chez

Yeah, I think we've got to just agree to disagree on what's better. There isn't a huge difference conceptually. It's the subjective element of atheism that makes it preferable to me. Ah well, I've made my case, on to other matters.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I think we've got to just agree to disagree on what's better. There isn't a huge difference conceptually. It's the subjective element of atheism that makes it preferable to me. Ah well, I've made my case, on to other matters.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've honestly no idea what this post means. Oh well.

chez