Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions..

[The Grand Nudger]

Inspiration for my comment? I mean exactly what I said. There's nothing in any of our myths that flow from the myths themselves. Whatever we find there exists in our own minds and could be drawn from a roll of toilet paper in place of ancient texts if we were so inclined.

[Whateverist]

Which came first? The archetype in the psyche or the myth on the scroll? If the former, then we might tap the psyche to express the myth afresh. If the latter, where did those scroll writers get it? If the myths are not already on board in some sense then we must be on our way to theism.

[The Grand Nudger]

Either is a product of human beings. We do express myths afresh actually. How many times has Midas been redone? My nephew was telling me about some excellent book he had to read (he's in middle school I believe) about a kid who turned everything he touched into chocolate, and how great that would be. I said "oh, so it's king midas?", he says "who?". It was obvious he hadn't made it to the end so I didn't want to ruin the narrative for him by elaborating, lol.

Ask Bram Stoker where he came up with Dracula. Ask Shakespeare where Aaron came from. I don't understand the mystery here. Seems like we're well on our way to a good piece of literature, not sure how theism gets invoked so quickly (but it obviously does, judging by the amount of believers in the world and their "greatest story ever told"..or "too good to be fiction" or my favorite "too perfect in its style and composition to be a product of the human hand".)

[dtango]

That is precisely the question Campbell addresses.

.
“Primitive Mythology” by Joseph Campbell.
Prologue, Page 4:

And though man who bow with closed eyes in the sanctuaries of their own tradition rationally scrutinize and disqualify the sacraments of others, an honest comparison immediately reveals that all have been built from one fund of mythological motifs –variously selected, organized, interpreted, and ritualized, according to local need, but revered by every people on earth.

A fascinating psychological, as well as historical, problem is thus presented. Man, apparently, cannot maintain himself in the universe without belief in some arrangement of the general inheritance of myth.
[…]
And why should it be that whenever men looked for something solid on which to found their lives, they have chosen not the facts in which the world abounds, but the myths of an immemorial imagination?

To commence a study on mythology with a preconception of the magnitude that myth is the product of the imagination was his fatal mistake.

No matter the wealth of information he used, time will prove him wrong because he committed the sin of an unforgivable mistake: he crossed the road without looking both ways.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yet he is the last word in comparative mythology, textbooks are based upon his work. You have a blog, and posts on AF......

LOL, it's a fairly hefty dose of imagination involved when you tell tales of flying carpets and siege machines, talking animals, or ghastly apparitions handing you a script for the future. Myth can also be based on an event, but without a hefty dose of imagination you have an entry in a logbook, not a myth. The juicy bits of the story are remembered, the boring logbook entry is forgotten.

[Perhaps]

I found it very intriguing to read through these comments and opinions. Many are well supported and clearly stated.

There are two primary things I want to say in regards to some comments posted on this thread. One is in relation to this quote: "The absence of all evidence for the necessity of X existing is evidence against the necessary existence of X." and the other is in regards to absolute truth (knowledge).

I'll begin with the quote given by mayor of simpleton. That is a commonly held belief as it pertains to almost all fictional characters in relation to their existence in reality. In the sense of knowing - being able to apply reason to a situation or event and predicting an outcome based upon prior knowledge - the quote stands firm. However, in the sense of knowing - absolutely positive of the outcome (without prediction or assumption) - it falters. We may use reason as a valid approach to worldly topics - it is what has let our species progress so far - but reason has its limits. Pascal came to this conclusion long ago when analyzing rationality.

Regarding absolute truth (knowledge). The only field of study which can possibly provide an absolute truth is mathematics. The proofs we learn in school are non-negotiable and non-refutable. Also, mathematically, to refute a proof all that is needed is one sufficient counter example (much the same as in law or some cases of formal debate). When we assess events or situations we gain knowledge - whether through inductive or deductive measures - which adds to our prior knowledge. As it is not possible, by ontological definition, to have all knowledge it then becomes impossible to posses absolute knowledge. Coming back to absolute truth; however, we can see that some things can be proved to be absolute truths - meaning that they will never be wrong and will always work - but even those are dependent on our knowledge. As our knowledge grows our ability to refute prior proofs by providing counter examples grows. Effectively the situation becomes a never ending period of growth where knowledge approaches infinity and the possibility to have absolute knowledge approaches 0.

How does this apply to the previous conversations and discussions?

As was stated earlier, if God is as claimed by his followers - not of this world - then we cannot subject him/her/it to our science and our reason, thus negating the original quote provided (as it relies on reason). Our ability to objectively state that we have absolute knowledge of God's non-existence is virtually 0 and, as explained above, approaches 0 as our overall knowledge increases over time.

In conclusion, I think that the term agnostic is quite suiting to a logical atheist as it 'covers the bases' of absolute truth (knowledge) and applications of reason to fields outside of the physical realm in which we live. But hey, that's just my opinion, I'd love to read more of everyone else's.

[edit:] For those who are interested in psychological and sociological reasons for why religion and theism are so profound in human nature, you might enjoy reading up on cognitive science of religion - there are quite a few strong, well written scholarly essays published within the past 3 years that have a lot of interesting material. I would recommend the following for starters: Peterson, Gregory R. "Are Evolutionary/Cognitive Theories of Religion Relevant for Philosophy of Religion?" Journal of Religion and Science 45.3 (2010): 545-57. Academic Search Premier. Web. October 3, 2011

[houseofcantor]

Yet he is the last word in comparative mythology, textbooks are based upon his work. You have a blog, and posts on AF......

Was that an appeal to authority?

Dtango's got me, now.

Me likes devil emote. My regular hangout has been slacking in that area. I use the term "meme" cause it is working for me, and me and dtango are on the same page - right now, anyway.

---

As was stated earlier, if God is as claimed by his followers - not of this world - then we cannot subject him/her/it to our science and our reason, thus negating the original quote provided (as it relies on reason). Our ability to objectively state that we have absolute knowledge of God's non-existence is virtually 0 and, as explained above, approaches 0 as our overall knowledge increases over time.

Are you in the fucking bushes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm thinking "pantheist" was not your religion yesterday.

You're doing the if/then thing again. You quote some article I can't snag for freebies, and because I'm a cheap bastard, I end up a place called Zygon - where I smell agenda.

See this right here? Our ability to objectively state that we have absolute knowledge of God's non-existence is virtually 0 Right now, that means me and you, yes? My ability to state that I have absolute knowledge of God's non-existence is probability 1. Now you're down to 50%. Wanna try again?

[Norfolk And Chance]

I found it very intriguing to read through these comments and opinions. Many are well supported and clearly stated.

There are two primary things I want to say in regards to some comments posted on this thread. One is in relation to this quote: "The absence of all evidence for the necessity of X existing is evidence against the necessary existence of X." and the other is in regards to absolute truth (knowledge).

I'll begin with the quote given by mayor of simpleton. That is a commonly held belief as it pertains to almost all fictional characters in relation to their existence in reality. In the sense of knowing - being able to apply reason to a situation or event and predicting an outcome based upon prior knowledge - the quote stands firm. However, in the sense of knowing - absolutely positive of the outcome (without prediction or assumption) - it falters. We may use reason as a valid approach to worldly topics - it is what has let our species progress so far - but reason has its limits. Pascal came to this conclusion long ago when analyzing rationality.

Regarding absolute truth (knowledge). The only field of study which can possibly provide an absolute truth is mathematics. The proofs we learn in school are non-negotiable and non-refutable. Also, mathematically, to refute a proof all that is needed is one sufficient counter example (much the same as in law or some cases of formal debate). When we assess events or situations we gain knowledge - whether through inductive or deductive measures - which adds to our prior knowledge. As it is not possible, by ontological definition, to have all knowledge it then becomes impossible to posses absolute knowledge. Coming back to absolute truth; however, we can see that some things can be proved to be absolute truths - meaning that they will never be wrong and will always work - but even those are dependent on our knowledge. As our knowledge grows our ability to refute prior proofs by providing counter examples grows. Effectively the situation becomes a never ending period of growth where knowledge approaches infinity and the possibility to have absolute knowledge approaches 0.

How does this apply to the previous conversations and discussions?

As was stated earlier, if God is as claimed by his followers - not of this world - then we cannot subject him/her/it to our science and our reason, thus negating the original quote provided (as it relies on reason). Our ability to objectively state that we have absolute knowledge of God's non-existence is virtually 0 and, as explained above, approaches 0 as our overall knowledge increases over time.

In conclusion, I think that the term agnostic is quite suiting to a logical atheist as it 'covers the bases' of absolute truth (knowledge) and applications of reason to fields outside of the physical realm in which we live. But hey, that's just my opinion, I'd love to read more of everyone else's.

[edit:] For those who are interested in psychological and sociological reasons for why religion and theism are so profound in human nature, you might enjoy reading up on cognitive science of religion - there are quite a few strong, well written scholarly essays published within the past 3 years that have a lot of interesting material. I would recommend the following for starters: Peterson, Gregory R. "Are Evolutionary/Cognitive Theories of Religion Relevant for Philosophy of Religion?" Journal of Religion and Science 45.3 (2010): 545-57. Academic Search Premier. Web. October 3, 2011

Wow, one more step nearer your final declaration that actually, you think god might be real after all.

I smell theist troll, undercover.

---

I've always regarded myself as a 7, at least for the past 3 or 4 years. The idea of a God is just so absurd that I have severe concerns about anyone who gives it any real thought and still sincerely believes. I know it can be hard to shed long held beliefs, but the concept is just so stupid.

I'm also a 7.

[houseofcantor]

I'm also a 7.

That's the rational position. Clinical insanity is probably a requirement to be an 8 like me.

[Whateverist]

To commence a study on mythology with a preconception of the magnitude that myth is the product of the imagination was his fatal mistake.

I'm afraid you may be interpreting his use of "imagination" to mean "stuff we just make up". The difference between that and what he means involves intention. He isn't saying that any one "made up" the gods or myths about the gods just to deceive people. It is more accurate to say that when one's imagination is unleashed, these common motifs just seem to arise everywhere.

---

- but reason has its limits. Pascal came to this conclusion long ago when analyzing rationality.

I quite agree and thank you for such a thoughtful and thought provoking post.

Regarding absolute truth (knowledge). The only field of study which can possibly provide an absolute truth is mathematics.

If by knowledge we mean something like: objectively correct beliefs which we hold for conclusive reasons, then mathematics is probably the only place we really have any. Something like this is what we mean by the word "knowledge" but in our actual lives we settle for much, much less - by necessity of course. I teach algebra to middle school students and am fond of telling them that mathematics is the easiest kind of reasoning. Everything else is much, much harder. But I think that in mathematics we get a firm idea of what truth and validity really are so that we can judge realistically how far short we fall when we make claims about anything else.

Peterson, Gregory R. "Are Evolutionary/Cognitive Theories of Religion Relevant for Philosophy of Religion?" Journal of Religion and Science 45.3 (2010): 545-57. Academic Search Premier. Web. October 3, 2011

Thank you for these. Do you happen to know if they are available online? If not I can probably find them in the psychology or philosophy department libraries at our local university.