Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 3:24 am

Poll: Would you prefer to be an agnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist?
This poll is closed.
Agnostic theist
69.23%
9 69.23%
Gnostic atheist
30.77%
4 30.77%
Total 13 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists
#41
RE: My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists
(December 24, 2009 at 9:41 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: QM is very much known, but just poorly understood.

Well said.

EvF
Reply
#42
RE: My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists
You can't prove that god ever visited earth aside from what you read in your so called divinely inspired texts. Your believing these texts is an act of faith in and of itself. Just because we thought of describing the unknown as some form of superior being or intelligence does not make it true. Everything people claim to know about god and his nature is invalid since it comes from men just as fallible as we are. Regarding the words of the bible being divinely inspired because they can't be bettered I beg to differ. There are many works that are superior to anything written in the bible.
There is nothing people will not maintain when they are slaves to superstition

http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/

Reply
#43
RE: My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists
You don't understand metaphorically shit whatsoever.

God does not visit the earth, he's everywhere already, and at the same time he's outside the universe.

He has no attributes whatsoever, including position in spacetime, still you can talk to him on a personal level everywhere.

We may think for ourselves, but will burn in hell for eternity if he doesn't like it

He helps you with everything in some unknown therapeutic way, yet you are on your own with the identity he chose for you, and you are ultimately responsible for all you do with the free will he gave you.

He's perfect, all-good and complete already but he felt the need to throw a party with human suffering and misery at the center just the same

He's a three in one split personality, and he's mad as hell at you that your ancestors were inquisitive, yet he forgives you his anger by hanging on a cross and taking his own blame

He's indistinguishable from demons, yet you always know what you're dealing with.

He has his absolute morals, and you better not ask where he got 'm

Capice, all you dumb asses??
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#44
RE: My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists
(December 25, 2009 at 6:14 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: You don't understand metaphorically shit whatsoever.

God does not visit the earth, he's everywhere already, and at the same time he's outside the universe.

He has no attributes whatsoever, including position in spacetime, still you can talk to him on a personal level everywhere.

We may think for ourselves, but will burn in hell for eternity if he doesn't like it

He helps you with everything in some unknown therapeutic way, yet you are on your own with the identity he chose for you, and you are ultimately responsible for all you do with the free will he gave you.

He's perfect, all-good and complete already but he felt the need to throw a party with human suffering and misery at the center just the same

He's a three in one split personality, and he's mad as hell at you that your ancestors were inquisitive, yet he forgives you his anger by hanging on a cross and taking his own blame

He's indistinguishable from demons, yet you always know what you're dealing with.

He has his absolute morals, and you better not ask where he got 'm

Capice, all you dumb asses??

ROFLOL

Perfectly said
.
Reply
#45
RE: My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists
Way to go there Rabbit lol so true.
There is nothing people will not maintain when they are slaves to superstition

http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/

Reply
#46
RE: My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists
Ok, so now I'm back home with decent internet, two monitors (one of which is 24 inches), and some time, I can respond to your points:
(December 21, 2009 at 5:48 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Adrian, just one question for you to maybe ponder about while in exile from the internet. Do you know absolutely certain that there is no way of obtaining objective knowledge?
As you guessed correctly, the answer is no. Although of course it depends on how you define certainty, whether it is directly related to knowledge (i.e 100% certainty means it is true, and therefore is knowledge) or whether it is a personal level of certainty (in the same group as "I'm pretty sure"). If it is the latter, then I could answer with a tentative yes, and back up my yes with the logical arguments for human fallibility and the non-existence of the knowing of knowledge. If it is the former, then my answer is of course no, since to say otherwise puts me in the realm of claiming objective knowledge, thus forming a contradiction with my original answer.
(December 22, 2009 at 6:09 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:
(December 21, 2009 at 5:26 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The definition says "is unknown or unknowable". This does not mean that one for of agnosticism says that things are unknown, and another says thing are unknowable.
It does not explicitly rule that out either, meaning that any stricter interpretation, such as yours, is in essence a redefinition of your own making. Strong and weak agnosticism, not terms I invented myself, coin these different varieties.
Strong and weak agnosticism can be seen as different types or "modifiers" of agnosticism as a concept, but you still don't get the main point I am arguing. I am neither a strong agnostic or a weak agnostic, since both "types" leave out fundamental points that give agnosticism its power. Strong agnosticism goes too far, making an absolute statement about the inability to know absolutes (and thereby presenting a weakness for attack). Weak agnosticism doesn't go far enough, simply saying that some truths are "unknown". It's a simple way of pointing out the very very obvious...
Quote:This clearly shows that 'unknown' and 'unknowable' are not interchangeable terms and hence that it is incorrect to treat them as such. The defintion says "unknown OR unknowable" not "unknown AND unknowable". This means someone deserves the label agnostic according to this definition when he states that X is unknown, but also the person who states that it is unknowable deserves that label. Since these are not he same statements, they are different varieties of agnosticism. And even when you redefine to "unknown AND unknowable" to overcome this problem a person can only be agnostic when according to his believe X is not only unknown but also unknowable. In that case a person who only states that X is unknown, would not be an agnostic.
Indeed, and I claim to follow agnosticism as exactly the "unknown or unknowable" version. If we were to say that pizzashapism is the philosophical view that pizzas are circular OR square, this doesn't automatically mean that pizzshapism has two types, one of the view that "pizzas are circular" and the other of the view that "pizzas are square". The view is fine on it's own, as it is with agnosticism, defined plainly like this.

The point I tried to make about the words "unknown" and "unknowable" is that they complement each other. If you view something as "unknown", then by definition you don't know anything about it, thus it could be "unknowable", but you don't know if it is since it's unknown. If you view something as "unknowable", it is by definition "unknown" in the first place.

Ergo, my view is that certain truths are unknown or unknowable. Since they are unknown, I cannot say whether they are knowable or not, and thus the "unknowable" term comes in as an "OR" to strengthen the definition. This is the true strength of agnosticism; that unknowability is a possibility, yet due to it's nature we cannot say whether something is "unknowable".

So I reject strong and weak agnosticism, much as I reject strong and weak atheism. I'm an atheist, pure and simple, and an agnostic, pure and simple. I don't believe in gods, and I believe that the truth value of certain things are unknown or unknowable (and as I previously said, I can't say which, thus I must leave them both in).



Quote:Then you are in denial of some historic facts. Skepticism historically has had two basic traditions: Academic Skepticism and Pyrrhonism. The credo of so called Academic Skepticism is that some truths are completely unknowable to people. This branch of skepticism comes from the Platonic Academy which gradually adopted this position after Plato's death. Known is that Cicero and Erasmus (another nasty dutchman) adopted this view.
Red herring. Reaching back into archaic historical definitions to support your point doesn't work in this game. Skepticism as it stands defined by modern philosophy is "suspending judgement". In other words, something remains unknown until further investigation is done.

Quote:Yet (1) fundamental unknowability, (2) the subjective nature of knowledge and (3) human infallibility are different things. (1) is a philosophical position, (2) and (3) are specific arguments (the specific arguments you bring forward) in support of fundamental unknowability.

When you subscribe to (1) it is not absolutely neccesary to subscribe to (2) and/or (3) ( for one can have other reasons than (2) or (3) to subscribe to (1). That you might think that (2) or (3) are the only valid arguments for (1) is irrelevant.
Your accusation was that I'd missed the fundamental unknowability position inside agnosticism. I pointed out that I hadn't, and that I'd addressed it earlier. As I explained then, agnosticism covers itself by using the "OR" to negate any absolute position (see above).

I have no idea what you mean when you say that me thinking that (2) and (3) are the only arguments for (1) is irrelevant, because I simply don't. They just happened to be 2 arguments I put forward to show how I had addressed the fundamental unknowability position, and as you stated above, both (2) and (3) are arguments for fundamental unknowability, so what are you arguing about? Methinks we've gone off track somewhere.
Quote:Anyway, I can show you that (2) and (3) are not the only possible arguments to adopt (1). There is indeed another possible argument I can think of that also amounts to fundamental unknowability of god's existence and that is the argument that god deliberately and actively hides knowledge about his existence from us. One might adopt this stance while at the same time refute (2) an (3); i.e. humans can have absolute knowledge about things other than god's existence and knowledge is not subjective in nature.
Indeed, and as I said above I have no problems with this. I wasn't trying to argue that my arguments were the only arguments (I mean, that would be an absolute statement Tongue ), I was just pointing out that I'd argued them...
Quote:Furthermore, to have "no known way of obtaining objective knowledge" (underlining by me), as you put it when explaining your point about the subjective nature of knowledge, does not necessarily mean that there is a fundamental/absolute barrier to ever obtain objective knowledge. You surely know this difference since you in your explanation of why absolute truth cannot be obtained, stated "This is because we are subjective, and there is no objective way of viewing reality (as of yet) that doesn't succumb to some kind of subjectivity." (underlining by me). This again shows the discrepancy between what you see as valid reasons for agnosticism and fundamental agnosticism which is an absolute statement about such a barrier.
No, as I said before, this is the power of agnosticism with the "OR". There is currently no known way of obtaining objective knowledge, thus it is "unknown". It could be "unknowable" as well, but since we cannot state this without invalidating the claim of "unknown", we must put the OR there to be logically valid. It isn't fundamental agnosticism since we aren't making a positive claim that it is unknowable, we are saying "the possibility is there", which is about as far from an absolute claim as you can get.

Quote:The conclusion from this is that the fundamental unknowability position that makes an absolute claim is a possible philosophical position to take (though arguebly not a valid position) and that it is not excluded from common and accepted definitions of agnosticism. Moreover, the wording in common and accepted definitions strongly suggests that the fundamental unknowability position is indeed included.
If the "OR" wasn't there I'd agree with you. Luckily, the OR is there for all to see, and I keep it in to maintain the integrity of pure agnosticism without going too over the top (with your strong agnosticism example), or not going far enough (with your weak agnosticism example). For me, the "OR" is the part of agnosticism which holds the most power in the definition. It implies possibility, which is exactly what agnosticism is about. The possibility that this knowledge exists, but that until we know that knowledge, we can't say anything about it!
Reply
#47
RE: My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists
(December 29, 2009 at 11:37 am)Tiberius Wrote: Ok, so now I'm back home with decent internet, two monitors (one of which is 24 inches), and some time, I can respond to your points:
I will do this entirely without a 24 inch monitor.

Tiberius Wrote:
(December 21, 2009 at 5:48 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Adrian, just one question for you to maybe ponder about while in exile from the internet. Do you know absolutely certain that there is no way of obtaining objective knowledge?
As you guessed correctly, the answer is no.
The conclusion from this is straightforward that you have to leave open the possibility that some day it might be possible for humans to obtain objective knowledge. This means you deny the absolute claim of fundamental unknowability that there not ever can be knowledge about god's existence.

Tiberius Wrote:Although of course it depends on how you define certainty, whether it is directly related to knowledge (i.e 100% certainty means it is true, and therefore is knowledge) or whether it is a personal level of certainty (in the same group as "I'm pretty sure"). If it is the latter, then I could answer with a tentative yes, and back up my yes with the logical arguments for human fallibility and the non-existence of the knowing of knowledge. If it is the former, then my answer is of course no, since to say otherwise puts me in the realm of claiming objective knowledge, thus forming a contradiction with my original answer.
I was talking about 100% certainty so there is no backdoor out of the above conclusion.

Tiberius Wrote:
(December 22, 2009 at 6:09 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:
(December 21, 2009 at 5:26 pm)Tiberius Wrote: The definition says "is unknown or unknowable". This does not mean that one for of agnosticism says that things are unknown, and another says thing are unknowable.
It does not explicitly rule that out either, meaning that any stricter interpretation, such as yours, is in essence a redefinition of your own making. Strong and weak agnosticism, not terms I invented myself, coin these different varieties.
Strong and weak agnosticism can be seen as different types or "modifiers" of agnosticism as a concept, but you still don't get the main point I am arguing. I am neither a strong agnostic or a weak agnostic, since both "types" leave out fundamental points that give agnosticism its power. Strong agnosticism goes too far, making an absolute statement about the inability to know absolutes (and thereby presenting a weakness for attack). Weak agnosticism doesn't go far enough, simply saying that some truths are "unknown". It's a simple way of pointing out the very very obvious...
Right, they are modifiers and they are possible modifiers of agnosticism. IOW, agnosticism, without the modifiers, does not exclude these meanings. Not the phrasing that Huxley used and not the phrasing you can find in dictionaries and on the internet. So I get your point very clearly, you try to wiggle out under the implication of a poorly defined term you're using. If you try to redefine agnosticism so that these meanings, particularly the 'strong' variant - meaning fundamental unknowability - are excluded you are assuming authority you do not have. And I strongly object to that kind of behaviour.

Tiberius Wrote:
Quote:This clearly shows that 'unknown' and 'unknowable' are not interchangeable terms and hence that it is incorrect to treat them as such. The defintion says "unknown OR unknowable" not "unknown AND unknowable". This means someone deserves the label agnostic according to this definition when he states that X is unknown, but also the person who states that it is unknowable deserves that label. Since these are not he same statements, they are different varieties of agnosticism. And even when you redefine to "unknown AND unknowable" to overcome this problem a person can only be agnostic when according to his believe X is not only unknown but also unknowable. In that case a person who only states that X is unknown, would not be an agnostic.

Indeed, and I claim to follow agnosticism as exactly the "unknown or unknowable" version. If we were to say that pizzashapism is the philosophical view that pizzas are circular OR square, this doesn't automatically mean that pizzshapism has two types, one of the view that "pizzas are circular" and the other of the view that "pizzas are square". The view is fine on it's own, as it is with agnosticism, defined plainly like this.
Non sequitur. It certainly means that person A who views pizzas circular and a person B who views pizzas square are both pizzashapists according to this definition. There is no reason stated in the definition you give that a person is not a pizzashapist if he believes pizzas are circular yet does not believe that pizzas can be square. You are not building an argument here, instead you're undermining your already weak position on this.

Tiberius Wrote:The point I tried to make about the words "unknown" and "unknowable" is that they complement each other. If you view something as "unknown", then by definition you don't know anything about it, thus it could be "unknowable", but you don't know if it is since it's unknown. If you view something as "unknowable", it is by definition "unknown" in the first place.
Indeed, they do complement each other for the simple reason that they don't mean the same. This clearly shows an intention to encompass a broader range of possible philosophical positions than just "unknown".

Tiberius Wrote:Ergo, my view is that certain truths are unknown or unknowable. Since they are unknown, I cannot say whether they are knowable or not, and thus the "unknowable" term comes in as an "OR" to strengthen the definition.This is the true strength of agnosticism; that unknowability is a possibility, yet due to it's nature we cannot say whether something is "unknowable".
Whether it is a strength or not is not relevant, its definition explicitly does not exclude positions regarding the existence of god that defends unknowability as is testified by the "or unknowable". But really this last sentence of yours shines brilliantly with suggestion of meaning not surfaced before but in reality is an emporer without clothes. Let's assess all parts of it one at a time (all underlining by me):

Tiberius Wrote:This is the true strength of agnosticism; that unknowability is a possibility, yet due to it's nature we cannot say whether something is "unknowable".
So do you wanna suggest that (1) I've missed its full meaning so far or (2) that there is hidden meaning besides what is right there in the definition? About (1) I say to you that I made the suggestion of fundamental unknowability being a possible postion within agnosticism to you, not the other way around. A suggestion of type (2) clearly would be a red herring. We are not assessing your definition of agnosticism, we are assessing the common definition of agnosticism.

Tiberius Wrote:This is the true strength of agnosticism; that unknowability is a possibility, yet due to it's nature we cannot say whether something is "unknowable".
Indeed that is what I've argued for, fundamental unknowability is a possible (but not necessarily valid) stance for the agnostic.

Tiberius Wrote:This is the true strength of agnosticism; that unknowability is a possibility, yet due to it's nature we cannot say whether something is "unknowable".
The "yet" suggests that there is some problem of reconciling "unkwowability" with "unknowable". But anybody can see that a claim of unknowability for X, implies that X is unknowable in that POV. Without contradiction. The words you used suggest a lot but have no real substance.

With the "due to its nature" you finally make visible for the reader what drives you to suggest that agnosticism is not the literal interpretation of the given definition. With that little remark you make clear that you argue for validity of stances within agnosticism instead of possibility of stances given the definition. You add personal preference to the definition of agnoticism. It essentially is your personal take on agnosticism, nothing more, nothing less.

Tiberius Wrote:So I reject strong and weak agnosticism, much as I reject strong and weak atheism. I'm an atheist, pure and simple, and an agnostic, pure and simple. I don't believe in gods, and I believe that the truth value of certain things are unknown or unknowable (and as I previously said, I can't say which, thus I must leave them both in).
You are completely free to reject strong and weak agnosticism as a position to take yourself and I can't stress enough that this argument is not about that at all. But your personal position has no effect at all on the possible stances that are within the definition of agnosticism.

Tiberius Wrote:
Quote:Then you are in denial of some historic facts. Skepticism historically has had two basic traditions: Academic Skepticism and Pyrrhonism. The credo of so called Academic Skepticism is that some truths are completely unknowable to people. This branch of skepticism comes from the Platonic Academy which gradually adopted this position after Plato's death. Known is that Cicero and Erasmus (another nasty dutchman) adopted this view.
Red herring. Reaching back into archaic historical definitions to support your point doesn't work in this game. Skepticism as it stands defined by modern philosophy is "suspending judgement". In other words, something remains unknown until further investigation is done.
You clearly misread the source I gave you on Academic Skepticism, the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy. It doesn't state there at all that Academic Skepticism is some archaic form of skepticism died out long ago. It just treats the position, and rather thoroughly at that, as a possible philosophical stance within skepticism. The historic references I made are just in there to provide some historic context. So don't be a wise guy with that red herring. Take it back on your plate.

Tiberius Wrote:
Quote:[quote]
Yet (1) fundamental unknowability, (2) the subjective nature of knowledge and (3) human infallibility are different things. (1) is a philosophical position, (2) and (3) are specific arguments (the specific arguments you bring forward) in support of fundamental unknowability.

When you subscribe to (1) it is not absolutely neccesary to subscribe to (2) and/or (3) ( for one can have other reasons than (2) or (3) to subscribe to (1). That you might think that (2) or (3) are the only valid arguments for (1) is irrelevant.
Your accusation was that I'd missed the fundamental unknowability position inside agnosticism. I pointed out that I hadn't, and that I'd addressed it earlier. As I explained then, agnosticism covers itself by using the "OR" to negate any absolute position (see above).
The OR-clause does not negate the fundamental unknowability position at all. It's a complete non sequitur. It instead clearly and rather obtrusively paves the way for the absolute claim of fundamental unknowability. To negate the absolute position "but not necessarily unknowable" or something along that line should have been added instead.

Tiberius Wrote:I have no idea what you mean when you say that me thinking that (2) and (3) are the only arguments for (1) is irrelevant, because I simply don't. They just happened to be 2 arguments I put forward to show how I had addressed the fundamental unknowability position, and as you stated above, both (2) and (3) are arguments for fundamental unknowability, so what are you arguing about? Methinks we've gone off track somewhere.
I did not say that you indeed thought that only (2) and (3) are arguments for (1), but that it is irrelevant whether you do or not. Since it is irrelevant to this discussion altogether what anyone might think are possible valid reasons for (1). The only hing that counts is that th absolute claim of fundamental unknowability is a possible claim ithin agnosticism as defined in the definition under consideration.

Tiberius Wrote:
Quote:Furthermore, to have "no known way of obtaining objective knowledge" (underlining by me), as you put it when explaining your point about the subjective nature of knowledge, does not necessarily mean that there is a fundamental/absolute barrier to ever obtain objective knowledge. You surely know this difference since you in your explanation of why absolute truth cannot be obtained, stated "This is because we are subjective, and there is no objective way of viewing reality (as of yet) that doesn't succumb to some kind of subjectivity." (underlining by me). This again shows the discrepancy between what you see as valid reasons for agnosticism and fundamental agnosticism which is an absolute statement about such a barrier.
No, as I said before, this is the power of agnosticism with the "OR".
You've only argued for addition of a constraint that's not there in the definition. With "or" the fundamental unknowability is allowed in its literal form. There is no explicit constraint in the definition that rules this out. The "as of yet" clause in your statement means that in that sentence you explicitly limit yourself to what is known now. You intend to rule out absolute statements which is your personal bias towards agnosticism.

Tiberius Wrote:There is currently no known way of obtaining objective knowledge, thus it is "unknown". It could be "unknowable" as well, but since we cannot state this without invalidating the claim of "unknown", we must put the OR there to be logically valid. It isn't fundamental agnosticism since we aren't making a positive claim that it is unknowable, we are saying "the possibility is there", which is about as far from an absolute claim as you can get.
Since when is logical validity a thing to consider before categorizing possible positions?

You claim that the OR-clause had to be added to prevent some absolutistic claim. But it does nothing of the sort, it instead paves the way for the absolute cclaim of fundamental unknowability. To rule out such absolutistic claims "but not necessarily unknowable" should have been added.

Tiberius Wrote:
Quote:The conclusion from this is that the fundamental unknowability position that makes an absolute claim is a possible philosophical position to take (though arguebly not a valid position) and that it is not excluded from common and accepted definitions of agnosticism. Moreover, the wording in common and accepted definitions strongly suggests that the fundamental unknowability position is indeed included.
If the "OR" wasn't there I'd agree with you. Luckily, the OR is there for all to see, and I keep it in to maintain the integrity of pure agnosticism without going too over the top (with your strong agnosticism example), or not going far enough (with your weak agnosticism example). For me, the "OR" is the part of agnosticism which holds the most power in the definition. It implies possibility, which is exactly what agnosticism is about. The possibility that this knowledge exists, but that until we know that knowledge, we can't say anything about it!
Again your words lack substance. The "OR" simply is in the definition, your personal interpretation of it is not. It is that simple. You don't like strong agnosticism, well, you're completely entitled to that and I even share that position. But in the end it is your personal constraint you've added to the definition, not what is in the definition itself.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#48
RE: My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists
(December 29, 2009 at 4:40 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: The conclusion from this is straightforward that you have to leave open the possibility that some day it might be possible for humans to obtain objective knowledge. This means you deny the absolute claim of fundamental unknowability that there not ever can be knowledge about god's existence.
Yes, I deny that claim.

Quote:Right, they are modifiers and they are possible modifiers of agnosticism. IOW, agnosticism, without the modifiers, does not exclude these meanings. Not the phrasing that Huxley used and not the phrasing you can find in dictionaries and on the internet. So I get your point very clearly, you try to wiggle out under the implication of a poorly defined term you're using. If you try to redefine agnosticism so that these meanings, particularly the 'strong' variant - meaning fundamental unknowability - are excluded you are assuming authority you do not have. And I strongly object to that kind of behaviour.
I never said it did exclude these meanings, and if that was how you interpreted my position, let me restate. My position is that a person can call themselves an agnostic (and indeed, many do) if they believe that certain truth claims are "unknown or unknowable". A "strong agnostic" is a modifier on this (leaving out the "unknown" for an absolute position), and the "weak agnostic" leaves out the "unknowable" phrase. I'm not redefining meanings, I'm simply pointing out (again since you repeatedly don't seem to get this very simple point) that the inclusion of the word "or" implies the possibility of unknowability, and isn't a claim of unknowability at all.

To make this a bit easier:

Strong Agnosticism: Some truth values are unknowable. (absolute position)
Weak Agnosticism: Some truth values are unknown. (relative position)
Agnosticism (as a general concept): Some truth values are unknown or unknowable. (No absolute position since the claim does not specify which truth values are "unknowable" and which are simply "unknown"). For this type of agnostic to go through a list and decide which ones are unknown and which are unknowable is not to follow this type of agnosticism, since they are applying some sort of knowledge to things that are not known. If you know X is unknowable, you know something about X, therefore X is not unknowable. The whole point about agnosticism is that it states that unknown things are either unknown, or unknowable. It isn't a mechanism for deducing which are which, or even if there are any "unknowable" things, but it is a position that covers all bases.

Quote:Non sequitur. It certainly means that person A who views pizzas circular and a person B who views pizzas square are both pizzashapists according to this definition. There is no reason stated in the definition you give that a person is not a pizzashapist if he believes pizzas are circular yet does not believe that pizzas can be square. You are not building an argument here, instead you're undermining your already weak position on this.
It's not a non-sequitur. Please read what I said. I said it doesn't automatically mean there are two types of pizzashapism, which is true. The problem it seems is with how we are understanding the use of the word OR, given that it can mean "one or the other, but not both", and "either at the same time" respectively. Generally, I read it as the latter, but maybe that's because I'm in Computer Science and I use the word XOR for the former. With XOR, your people could well be pizzashapists, since they only believe in one shape of pizza. With OR, they wouldn't be, since they reject the possibility of the other shape.

I think this is perhaps where we've gotten mixed up. You seem to be coming from an entirely different angle to the usage of the word OR, thus the confusion.

Quote:
Tiberius Wrote:This is the true strength of agnosticism; that unknowability is a possibility, yet due to it's nature we cannot say whether something is "unknowable".
So do you wanna suggest that (1) I've missed its full meaning so far or (2) that there is hidden meaning besides what is right there in the definition? About (1) I say to you that I made the suggestion of fundamental unknowability being a possible postion within agnosticism to you, not the other way around. A suggestion of type (2) clearly would be a red herring. We are not assessing your definition of agnosticism, we are assessing the common definition of agnosticism.
I want to suggest that we're both interpreting the OR in different ways. You see it as an XOR, whereas I see it as an OR. Common definition of agnosticism...well that's the problem in the first place isn't it? The common definitions are all over the place, since different people interpret it in different ways! You spend a lot of time criticising me for using my personal interpretation, but all of us are using our own personal interpretations, you included! Even philosophers can't agree with each other on what agnosticism means, since there are various ways of thinking about knowledge, and they each require a different interpretation of agnosticism to even work. The "common" definition as far as I can tell is "I don't know what I believe" which is clearly a modernisation / hybrid of what Huxley actually said, but more people use agnostic as a kind of "I'm not sure" position than anything.

So instead of assessing the "common definition" (an ultimately pointless task in my view), I thought we were assessing the meanings of agnosticism, and were debating on your assertion that it includes an absolute statement in the pure form itself.

Quote:Indeed that is what I've argued for, fundamental unknowability is a possible (but not necessarily valid) stance for the agnostic.
I never disagreed on this. However, you also argued that fundamental unknowability was a part of the actual definition itself (in the pure form). This is what I disagreed on, given the OR/XOR interpretation. Will you agree then, that when read with an OR and not an XOR, the absolute claim disappears?

Quote:The "yet" suggests that there is some problem of reconciling "unkwowability" with "unknowable". But anybody can see that a claim of unknowability for X, implies that X is unknowable in that POV. Without contradiction. The words you used suggest a lot but have no real substance.

With the "due to its nature" you finally make visible for the reader what drives you to suggest that agnosticism is not the literal interpretation of the given definition. With that little remark you make clear that you argue for validity of stances within agnosticism instead of possibility of stances given the definition. You add personal preference to the definition of agnoticism. It essentially is your personal take on agnosticism, nothing more, nothing less.
Of course there is a problem reconciling unknowability with unknowable. Just as a philosopher can ask "How do you know you know?", one can ask of a claim of the unknowability of X, "How do you know X is unknowable?". To claim knowledge of the unknowability of X is to make a claim of knowledge about X (since unknowability is a attribute of X), ergo X cannot be unknowable. This is one of the philosophical arguments against Strong Agnosticism.

The "due to its nature" was a reference to unknowability, not agnosticism. I probably phrased it badly; shifting subjects in sentences ain't my forte Tongue All I meant was that the "or" is present (in my view) to allow for both, rather than a choice. That something is "unknown" or "unknowable", but no direct claim is made to either, since it would undermine the whole "unknowable" thing and leave the weakness of strong agnosticism in the definition.


Quote:You are completely free to reject strong and weak agnosticism as a position to take yourself and I can't stress enough that this argument is not about that at all. But your personal position has no effect at all on the possible stances that are within the definition of agnosticism.
Indeed, so do you now accept that the further possible stance of OR rather than XOR is also in the definition, and that this stance is not one of absolutism?

Quote:You clearly misread the source I gave you on Academic Skepticism, the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy. It doesn't state there at all that Academic Skepticism is some archaic form of skepticism died out long ago. It just treats the position, and rather thoroughly at that, as a possible philosophical stance within skepticism. The historic references I made are just in there to provide some historic context. So don't be a wise guy with that red herring. Take it back on your plate.
Maybe it wasn't a red herring, maybe it was. It seemed pretty clear to me that when someone brings up skepticism, they mean the modern variety that Wikipedia has a long article on, and not some other version that means something completely different. It came across as petty, and a red herring attempting to divert the conversation (as I'd only brought up skepticism in a comparison).

Quote:The OR-clause does not negate the fundamental unknowability position at all. It's a complete non sequitur. It instead clearly and rather obtrusively paves the way for the absolute claim of fundamental unknowability. To negate the absolute position "but not necessarily unknowable" or something along that line should have been added instead.
If you read as XOR, yes. I think I've dealt with this above. To me, saying something is "X or Y" without making any kind of attempt to put a decision into the definition removes the absolute position in the first place. If a decision isn't made, and the only thing you can say is "X or Y" then there isn't any absolute position (unless both X and Y are absolute statements). Like I said before, the kind of agnostic I am doesn't make decisions on what is "unknown" and what is "unknowable". For everything on the list, we mark "unknown or unknowable". If something moves from the set of unknown to the known, it is obviously not "unknowable", but we can't say anything about the state of something's unknowability until it is known (and then it becomes obsolete). It's a kinda ironic (although very important) philosophical view in my eyes.

Quote:I did not say that you indeed thought that only (2) and (3) are arguments for (1)
Yes you did:
Quote:That you might think that (2) or (3) are the only valid arguments for (1) is irrelevant.

Quote:You've only argued for addition of a constraint that's not there in the definition. With "or" the fundamental unknowability is allowed in its literal form. There is no explicit constraint in the definition that rules this out. The "as of yet" clause in your statement means that in that sentence you explicitly limit yourself to what is known now. You intend to rule out absolute statements which is your personal bias towards agnosticism.
No, I don't intend to rule out absolute statements. I fully understand that you can interpret agnosticism to include absolute statements, but you can interpret it in many ways. My personal interpretation doesn't have any absolute statements in it, and that was all I was trying to show. If you accept that the version of agnosticism in the pure form with the OR rather than XOR doesn't have any absolute statements, then we can all sit back and have a nice cup of tea. Otherwise (and I fear it might be otherwise), we'll be debating for far longer Big Grin

Quote:Since when is logical validity a thing to consider before categorizing possible positions?

You claim that the OR-clause had to be added to prevent some absolutistic claim. But it does nothing of the sort, it instead paves the way for the absolute cclaim of fundamental unknowability. To rule out such absolutistic claims "but not necessarily unknowable" should have been added.
Logical validity is very important when defining things. I'd have thought that was obvious. What if you define something and it's logically invalid?

Again, interpretation of the different uses of the word OR leads to our confusion. Both our views are correct, according to which use of OR you use. Also, no, I didn't claim the OR was added to prevent an absolute claim. I said it was there to address a possibility (that something can also be unknowable).

Quote:Again your words lack substance. The "OR" simply is in the definition, your personal interpretation of it is not. It is that simple. You don't like strong agnosticism, well, you're completely entitled to that and I even share that position. But in the end it is your personal constraint you've added to the definition, not what is in the definition itself.
Same with your personal interpretation, same with everyone's. If my words lack substance, so do yours. I don't think either of our words lack substance however, since they all rely on different ways of interpreting. My view comes from reading the writings of Huxley, especially in this passage:

Quote:Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

The "or" here doesn't seem to be the type of or that means "either but not both" but rather as an inclusion of the "demonstrable" term to the definition, making sure to address the claims of non-empirical claims.
Reply
#49
RE: My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists
I'll pick up on what I think are your main arguments, since otherwise this indeed will soon derail into a impenetrable maze of heavily nested argument and counter argument.

First, let's resume what I think we agree on (feel free to deny any point of this, this is only what I infer from your writings so far):

A1) You and I both deny the absolute claim of fundamental unknowability, i.e. the claim that there is absolutely 100% certainty on the truth of the statement that knowledge about god's existence cannot ever be obtained.

A2) We agree upon the fact that the term 'agnosticism' is ill defined ("Even philosophers can't agree with each other on what agnosticism means" your quote).

A3) We agree upon the fact that you are giving your personal interpretation of agnosticism.

A4) Agnosticism contains the position of strong agnosticism (leaving out the "unknown" from the definition) and weak agnosticism (leaving out "unknowable").

A5) Strong atheism is fundamental unknowability

A6) Fundamental unknowability is a possible (but not necessarily valid) stance for the agnostic


Second, I'll resume our main issues of disagreement on this subject:

D1) You disagree with me when I say that A6 implies that agnosticism possibly but not necessarily contains an absolute claim

D2) I disagree with your rebuttal of the strong agnostic position with:
Tiberius Wrote:If you know X is unknowable, you know something about X, therefore X is not unknowable.


D3) I disagree with you that logical validity is relevant to evaluate if a position according to definition is (a type of) agnosticism

D4) I disagree with you that I am referring to my own definition of agnosticism, since I've presented to you several posts earlier exactly what definition of agnosticism (with the OR-clause) I refer to and have referred to since (i.e. the Wikipedia defintion that reads "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable"). If you want I can give you the post number in which I did.

D5) I disagree with you that from the definition of agnosticism we are assessing (i.e. the Wikipedia definition) it is possible to read unambiguosly mathematical language such as XOR or mathematical OR. It could well be intended as a way to give a limitative list of possible stances within agnosticism.

D6) I disagree with you that what you give as your interpretation of the "or"-clause in the definition can ever mean "either at the same time". That would be an "and" in my vocabulary.

Ad D2

Tiberius Wrote:If you know X is unknowable, you know something about X, therefore X is not unknowable.


Firstly, if you believe this, it is a rather strong argument to not add the "or unknowable" to the definition of agnosticism, for in your interpretation this would introduces a contradiction in the definition itself. Not really an enhancement of the definition I'd say.

Secondly, if you know the existence of X is unknowable, you only know something about the provability of existence of X, not necessarily about X itself since the provability need not be exclusivey dependent on X itself. Just the impossibility of proof doesn't mean it isn't real. And other truth claims about it might not be inaccessible. So you have mixed up different claims. That existence of X is unknowable does not necessarily imply that we have knowledge of X, nor does it imply that we can have no other knowledge of X than about it's existence. One can always assess the validity of other claims on X while refraining from absolute certainty claims on the existence of X. In fact that is what we do all the time in mathematics, astronomy, the whole of science.

Consider the following stances:

P1: The existence of X is unknown or unknowable
P2: The existence of X is unknown
P3: The existence of X is unknowable
P4: all statements about X are unknown
P5: all statements about X are unknowable

P3 does not contradict P2 but only the much stronger P4. To know that the existence of X is unknowable does not contradict that the existence of X is unknown. So we can have true statements about X (i.e. P2) when P3 is true.

Ad D6
You stated:
Tiberius Wrote:No, I don't intend to rule out absolute statements. I fully understand that you can interpret agnosticism to include absolute statements, but you can interpret it in many ways. My personal interpretation doesn't have any absolute statements in it, and that was all I was trying to show. If you accept that the version of agnosticism in the pure form with the OR rather than XOR doesn't have any absolute statements, then we can all sit back and have a nice cup of tea. Otherwise (and I fear it might be otherwise), we'll be debating for far longer

I guess we'll be debating on this subject indefinitely then, you assisted with double monitoring, since I cannot possibly accept that "or" in normal language means "either at the same time". That really sounds as an "and" to me. Moreover we seem to agree on the fact that the definition itself is inconclusive as how to interpret the "or" exactly. The most straightforward and probable interpretation of "or" in the definition is as to suggest an enumeration of possible agnostic stances.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#50
RE: My Fellow Specifically Agnostic Atheists
EvF we have spoken before about this. A "gnostic" is "one who knows". But the question biols down to one philosophical inquiry: What is knowledge? I KNOW that there is no God because I have observed it (have you seen the dark side of the world lately?) and also observed it's antithesis-- the notion that God exists. I have observed the "faithful" and observed their enormous lie. It is a lie. Look, there are still people who argue that the world is flat. You have evidence to the contrary, yes, but does that evidence actually constitute KNOWLEDGE? It's sort of like Newton who observed gravity and based on those observations had actual KNOWLEDGE of gravity even thou he didn't account for Einstien's later revelations that objects are not attracted to one another, but rather to the empty space in which they reside (which is curved by the mass of nearby matter, thus propelling objects with mass toward one another). He didn't have the knowledge, per se of this curvature in space, (because it was unavailable to him) Would you then argue that Newton had no knowledge of gravity? It is obvious that Newton observed the phenomen and understood it's workings and knew that gravity existed. In the same way, I know that God does NOT exist. I count this as knowledge based on observation. There might be some "curvature of space" element to the equation that I don't directly comprehend and maybe no one ever will because it is perhaps beyond the scope of comprehension or observation, but trust me-- there is no God. I know it. You know it. Even the Christians know it (in the words of Nietzshe, "Chistians SPEAK of faith but they ACT on their instincts" -paraphrased but acurate to the original statement- In chaos theory, a chaotic system ultimatley creates a system of order. The perceptable universe is the chaotic system here and knowledge is the system of order. What I'm arguing is that this system of order (knowledge) is in fact valid.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Find out how much your fellow forum members are getting screwed Catholic_Lady 68 7102 April 13, 2018 at 11:26 am
Last Post: Catholic_Lady
  Fellow Linux nerds: what's your favorite distro? IanHulett 16 2981 August 28, 2016 at 1:56 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  Another peeve I have with fellow liberals. Brian37 19 3239 June 2, 2015 at 6:46 pm
Last Post: Brian37
  So, if as an atheist/agnostic we're wrong about the god thing lilyannerose 13 5027 December 23, 2010 at 10:49 am
Last Post: Thor
  Atheist and Agnostic Clothing dontbelieve 9 5486 November 19, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Last Post: fr0d0
  Atheist/Agnostic Comedy tshirts mangakid 6 2367 August 10, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Last Post: mangakid
  Atheist and agnostic group, on Myspace Giff 20 6762 May 26, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Little Britain Usa Episode 6 (Specifically) CoxRox 20 6688 November 13, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)