[Raien]

http://newsweek.wash...themselves.html

A very interesting article that relates to some of the discussions we've had here on the nature of atheism.

[Mark]

on the whole I like it.
here are my thoughts:

Myth 1:

Absolutely, it seems that there are countless philosophical ideas and positions that trace their roots back to antiquity.
and believing that attitude of 'the new atheism' should somehow be a complete novelty is certainly an invention of fiction.

Myth 2:

I totally agree, although there is a consideration.
although no Atheist worth their salt will believe that the other to be categorically stupid.
although it seems to me to be far less the case that each will acknowledge the other as to being 'open minded' and honest when it comes to selecting their worldview.
it seems to be a matter of intellectual security in beliefs, where a person (whether Atheist or Theist) would like not only to say that they have good reason to hold the position that they do, but that other people (that is generally) also have good enough reason to occupy their position as well.
and in this way many Atheists and Theists alike put the others decisions down to things like bias, ignorance in facts or apathy in investigation - and hence become 'stupid' when it comes to worldviews.
Atheists and Theists who dont think this definitely do occupy the 'gentler' camp of their worldviews.

Another note:

Quote

What ultimately distinguishes atheists from religious believers, however, is that no intelligent atheist can ever claim that his or her ideas constitute absolute truth.

- wtf, what does this mean?


Myth 3:

here I have a slight qualm.
although it is obvious that there is no disection of 'gentler' and 'harsher' Atheism, just as there is no disection of 'fundamentalist' and 'liberal' christian, that dosn't nullify the poles.
as far as I can see it, there is a fast array of attitudes and political views within both camps, but the basic difference is that Theism has its essential ontological element (God) and common ontological elements (God's absolute goodness, the bible events etc.) and these are different from Atheism's commitments (not having God being essential, and absoluteness of 'natural law' etc being common)
whether or not Atheism is a religion or not seems to me to be only to be a matter of definitional word-slinging.

Myth 4:

Ok, big qualm.

I have never heard anyone propose that Atheists believe that current science explains everything! - obviously not.
but it is true that many Athists are naturalists, and believe that the vast majority of phenomena are mechanical by nature (even if non-deterministic), and hence are susceptible to scientific investigation and discovery, and hence 'science explains everything' in a phrase.

another note:

Quote

Atheists (at least those with a scintilla of scientific knowledge) would never claim that the universe always was and always will be.

I dont think so.

Myth 5:

although Atheism at a minimum is just not believing in God - and hence belief in the transcendence of the physical is not restricted to an Atheist.
never the less the Naturalist is quite freely and rightly able to avail themself of any degree of spirituality/transcendence/whatever which their ontology will allow.

see: http://www.naturalism.org/naturali.htm

and Ill be the last person to argue that theism principally allows greater quality of spiritual experience.

[smalls]

This article was a good read. FTFA: "Most [theists] confuse their constitutional right to believe whatever they want with the idea that the beliefs themselves must be inherently worthy of respect.

I think this pretty succinctly sums up the conflict between secularists and fundamentalists.

[GuardianNinja]

Mark, on 08 February 2010 - 12:00 PM, said:

Another note:

Quote

What ultimately distinguishes atheists from religious believers, however, is that no intelligent atheist can ever claim that his or her ideas constitute absolute truth.

- wtf, what does this mean?

It means that atheists wont say they are one hundred percent correct on everything. Abd they will never claim to have all the answers when they really dont (liar, hypocrite) atheists hate religion when it comes to this, never accept all at face value, be skeptical, just as science changes, religion never will.

This post has been edited by GuardianNinja: 08 February 2010 - 03:26 PM

[Egann]

Quote

Most have confused their constitutional right to believe whatever they want with the idea that the beliefs themselves must be inherently worthy of respect.

I'll be honest...I don't see 'theists' fitting in as the antecedent. In context, 'New Atheists' seem to fit much better and, to be frank, I think that this is the author's failure to communicate, either way because it makes some sense either way.

Quote

What we do think is that their (educated theists') ideas are wrong and irreconcilable with the laws of nature...What ultimately distinguishes atheists from religious believers, however, is that no intelligent atheist can ever claim that his or her ideas constitute absolute truth.

OK, so almost 500 words of text separate these two, but put together you can see the problem. In the latter statement, the author destroys any possibility of objectivity...and in the former she launches an attack BY USING an absolute measure (i.e. the laws of nature.) You can't have your cake and eat it, too, ma'am. If you can't make any claim your ideas constitute an absolute, the best arguments you can put together are suggestive at best...and you really only have spurious arguments if all they are is 'suggestive.'

The real problem here is that Susan Jacoby is PADDING her position. In other words, she's defending a position she doesn't really believe in (in this case, atheistic-leaning agnosticism) because it is more publicly defensible because it FEELS like a rational middle ground. The problem is that she doesn't actually believe what she's saying (not every word, at least) and so her offensive arguments don't jive with her defensive structure.

Really, because of the way the epistemology works, you have to have both your defensive position and offensive strategies rooted in EITHER atheism OR agnosticism. Because agnosticism works with a universal negative absolute base, the SLIGHTEST tinge of agnosticism in the defensive position will compel the offensive strategy into neutrality.

Put simply, the standard conception is that on the one hand you have theists, and on the other atheists with agnostics of different shades everywhere in between. I would like to disagree with this. I think that you have atheists and theists duking it out, to be sure, but to be truly consistent, agnosticism is an all-or-nothing venture...and even granting shades of agnosticism, as much as one agrees with agnosticism, one must also be proportionately apathetic because the arguments EVERYONE makes are equally invalidated. Not just one side or the other.

I have more to say, but I think this is enough for one post.

This post has been edited by Egann: 08 February 2010 - 04:52 PM

[arunma]

I'll write more about this when I have time, but I found at least one serious historical error here. In myth 1, she says:

"The "new atheism" is a phenomenon that differs radically not only from atheism as it has existed since antiquity but from the views held by forerunners of modern atheism, including deists and Enlightenment rationalists, like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, who played such a critical role in the founding of this nation [this sentence is the myth]. Try as I might, I find little in the works of Dawkins, Harris et. al.--apart from their knowledge of modern science--that differs significantly from the views of secular thinkers of earlier eras."

She says there's no significnt difference between Thomas Paine and Richard Dawkins!? How about this:

"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life." (Thomas Paine, Age of Reason, Part First, Section 1)

Now Thomas Paine was most definitely anti-religion. He was not a Christian in any sense of the word. But he definitely wasn't an atheist. Like most Enlightenment thinkers of his time, he believed in some sort of a God, and he wouldn't have seen belief in the existence of a supernatural being as foolish. This is antithetical to what Richard Dawkins believes. I'm not trying to give fundamentalists ammunition to parrot "America is a Christian nation!" or anything. But this is quite a significant historical error. I don't think she had any malicious intent, but it's the same as Christians who falsely claim that America is a historically Christian nation.

[Mark]

GuardianNinja, on 09 February 2010 - 06:25 AM, said:

Mark, on 08 February 2010 - 12:00 PM, said:

Another note:

Quote

What ultimately distinguishes atheists from religious believers, however, is that no intelligent atheist can ever claim that his or her ideas constitute absolute truth.

- wtf, what does this mean?

It means that atheists wont say they are one hundred percent correct on everything. And they will never claim to have all the answers when they really dont (liar, hypocrite) atheists hate religion when it comes to this, never accept all at face value, be skeptical, just as science changes, religion never will.

I'm yet to meet to many Christians who have confidence that all their particular doctrines are 100% correct, and especially those who are aware of the theological divergence on certain issues.
many don't even bother to feign 100% confidence in God's existence - the basis of all theological doctrines.
If the author takes this to be a distinguishing feature of the religious, then I've no reason to take her seriously here.

many Theists believe 'God probably does exist' with enough confidence to act according to their beliefs as if they were 'absolutely true' - and many may become bullhorn evangelists claiming to have 'all the answers'.
but so too many Atheists believe that 'God probably doesn't exist' with enough confidence to act according to their beliefs as if they were 'absolutely true' - and many may also become bullhorn evangelists who also claim to have 'all the answers'.

Taking the sentence literally, seems to imply that Atheists believe their ideas to be less than 'absolutely true'.
Perhaps she means absolutely significant in the lives of other people, or perhaps she is a relativist with truth.

The sentence seems a little vague.


Egann:

I may not have been reading too hard, but I just did not get the impression that she didnt believe what she was saying.

you've said:
"agnosticism works with a universal negative absolute base, the SLIGHTEST tinge of agnosticism in the defensive position will compel the offensive strategy into neutrality"

I take this to be exaggerated.
but how so?

for instance when arguing Myth 4 - stating that Atheists do not believe that current science explains everything.
even I would argue that strongly and I presume you would too.

you've said: "agnosticism is an all-or-nothing venture."
really?
this is probably a statement about your definition of Agnosticism, however what that is I dont know.

I take Agnosticism to be a stance on God's existence characterized by uncertainty and suspension of judgment.
and Atheism to be a stance on God's existence characterized by more certainty and less suspension of judgment with regard to God's non-existence.
so I really dont see Agnosticism as a corrosive 'all or nothing' venture.

This post has been edited by Mark: 08 February 2010 - 08:19 PM

[Jasi]

Mark, on 08 February 2010 - 07:14 PM, said:

GuardianNinja, on 09 February 2010 - 06:25 AM, said:

Mark, on 08 February 2010 - 12:00 PM, said:

Another note:

Quote

What ultimately distinguishes atheists from religious believers, however, is that no intelligent atheist can ever claim that his or her ideas constitute absolute truth.

- wtf, what does this mean?

It means that atheists wont say they are one hundred percent correct on everything. And they will never claim to have all the answers when they really dont (liar, hypocrite) atheists hate religion when it comes to this, never accept all at face value, be skeptical, just as science changes, religion never will.

I'm yet to meet to many Christians who have confidence that all their particular doctrines are 100% correct, and especially ones who are aware of the theological divergence on certain issues.
If the author takes this to be a distinguishing feature of the religious, then I've no reason to take her seriously here.

Taking the sentence literally, seems to imply that Atheists believe their ideas to be less than 'absolutely true'.
Perhaps she means absolutely significant in the lives of other people, or perhaps she is a relativist with truth.

The sentence seems a little vague.

I think it's referring to agnosticism vs. gnosticism. It is extremely rare to find a gnostic atheist, but I think you'd be surprised how many theists are gnostic. Not to say that all theists are gnostics--any intelligent human should be an agnostic, in the technical sense of the word.

[Mark]

Jasi:

just for clarity, what is the technical sense of the word 'Agnostic'?

if Agnosticism is uncertainty with respect to Gods existance, then yeah, I agree.
Ive met more christians that claim near absolute confidence in Theism than Ive met Atheists with near absolute confidence in Atheism.

This post has been edited by Mark: 08 February 2010 - 09:29 PM

[Jasi]

Sounds like we're clear.

Edit: Looked at this comic right after I posted.

(all in good humor, I'm an atheist myself )

This post has been edited by Jasi: 08 February 2010 - 10:43 PM

[Egann]

Gnosticism vs. Agnosticism

I don't exactly like Iron Chariots at many points because they aren't particularly keen on being logical if it suits their biases...

Quote

Strong atheism is the positive belief that no god exists.

I think it should be obvious that you cannot positively believe a negative for the same reason a double-negative is incorrect grammatically. If "No No" is a "Yes," then the logic can be understood as a multiplication of terms, therefore a "Yes No" is effectively a "No." The definition SHOULD be "the negative belief that no god exists," but as that they have a bias and want to make it look like this belief is totally NOT defending a universal negative...they don't say that.

Quote

I may not have been reading too hard, but I just did not get the impression that she didnt believe what she was saying.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not casting judgement on her. I have padded my position before. Several times. It's just inconsistency is a real danger in padding.

Quote

you've said:
"agnosticism works with a universal negative absolute base, the SLIGHTEST tinge of agnosticism in the defensive position will compel the offensive strategy into neutrality"

I take this to be exaggerated.
but how so?

for instance when arguing Myth 4 - stating that Atheists do not believe that current science explains everything.
even I would argue that strongly and I presume you would too.

you've said: "agnosticism is an all-or-nothing venture."
really?
this is probably a statement about your definition of Agnosticism, however what that is I dont know.

I take Agnosticism to be a stance on God's existence characterized by uncertainty and suspension of judgment.
and Atheism to be a stance on God's existence characterized by more certainty and less suspension of judgment with regard to God's non-existence.
so I really dont see Agnosticism as a corrosive 'all or nothing' venture.

Uh...not exactly. Agnosticism is believing that 'the truths of some statements' in metaphysics and religion' cannot be tested. The best way to describe this is a cognitive barrier which prevents this.

Spoiler

As is, I find Agnosticism to be self-defeating even as it's somewhat on the right track. The most important question in agnosticism is 'is there a cognitive barrier'...and answering that question with a diffinitive yes or no would be a statement which could not be tested. If there is a barrier, there is no way you could know it.

The problem is that yes, people DO look at the same information and come to fundamentally different conclusions. The agnostic makes a mistake by prematurely abstracting this observation into an absolute (hasty generalization fallacy.) This problem among humans does NOT mean that such truths cannot be tested. It means that HUMANS can't test their truth. Not directly with their own cognitive tools, anyway. This does not translate to 'cannot be tested' by anyone. The problem is a human fault, it is not a universal absolute. This is why agnosticism is based on a correct observation, but also comes to a self-defeating conclusion.

Agnosticism is an "all or nothing" venture in the sense that either some truths can't be tested or they all can be tested. I have yet to hear a good justification for compartmentalizing this into JUST metaphysics. In a very real sense, the introspection agnosticism turns on is an on or an off thing and, by all rights, OUGHT to wind up calling all truths into question indefinitely. Effectively, this cuts off any offense.

Most agnostics evade non-metaphysics from the issue because such truths CAN be tested. Agnosticism is based on the observation of the difficulty in testing others... so it is, by default, only applied to these. The problem is that, without having a good reason to only allow the questioning in only one area of thought, it OUGHT to have free reign over all.

[smalls]

Mark, on 08 February 2010 - 09:06 PM, said:

Jasi:

just for clarity, what is the technical sense of the word 'Agnostic'?

if Agnosticism is uncertainty with respect to Gods existance, then yeah, I agree.
Ive met more christians that claim near absolute confidence in Theism than Ive met Atheists with near absolute confidence in Atheism.

The way I read it recently somewhere (I can't find it..)and the way it was explained by the essayist is that every atheist is, strictly speaking, agnostic. The point isn't that atheists can disprove the existence of a god, just that theists can't prove that one exists. In rational argument, the maker of the assertion also possesses the burden of evidence for that assertion, and it's never been sufficiently made.

So there may be a bowl of spaghetti orbiting Saturn right now. I cannot prove that one isn't, but someone who believes there is could never convince me that one is, without physically taking me to observe such an object, and even then there's the whole problem of perception. I'm an agnostic about such a bowl, but really, practically both people, if truly conforming to their respective definitions of atheist and agnostic, both live and think in the same basic way.

This post has been edited by smalls: 09 February 2010 - 05:37 AM

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Surely, as no one person can speak for atheism, Susan Jacoby's article is a complete waste of time?

Technically, Buddhists are atheists, yet I think it would be hard-pressed to say that some of their beliefs are naturalistic. Karma and reincarnation and what not seem like New Age BS to me. Yet depending on their stance on gods (and there is no official Buddhist stance on gods), they can be theistic, agnostic or atheist.

[Mark]

Wolf_Odonnell:

I disagree.
I think that I could speak (with some degree of competence) for Atheism generally, and could speak (with probably a little more competence) for Theism generally.
evidently I may never be the perfect representative for either camp, but so what.
An Atheist needn't understand the ways of Atheistic Buddhists in order to successfully argue against the ontological argument and so defend Atheism.
and conversely for theists.

so we can still talk and argue our points without needing to be omniscient.

ps. I never ment to say that all Atheists are Naturalists, only that I see that a lot are.


smalls:

Ok, yep, I probably didn't express myself as clearly there as I should have.
what I meant to say was that Ive met more Theists who claim 100% confidence in the belief that "God does exist" than I have met Strong Atheists who claim 100% confidence in the belief that "God does not exist".


Egann:

Yeah I thought it would come to definitions.
Ok well, Imm happy to adopt your terms if I can understand them.

you've said: "Agnosticism is believing that 'the truths of some statements' in metaphysics and religion' cannot be tested"

cannot be tested at all? - to any degree of confidence?

if so, then I doubt that anyone is an Agnostic (by your definition), and I would think it a stretch to say that the author even feigns occupancy of this position.
I see that most people will happily admit that If God came down from the heavens in fire and flame and walked on water in front of them - then the seeing of God would be a valid test for his existence.
and in such an event they certainly would believe in God's existence and claim to have knowledge of the fact (although not infallible knowledge to be sure).

if what you mean by Agnosticism is believing that 'the truths of some statements' in metaphysics and religion cannot by testing be made absolutely certain.

if this is what you mean then almost everyone is an Agnostic (by that definition), I'd be one, and I would presume that you would be too.

so I'm still not quite sure what you mean.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Mark, on 09 February 2010 - 02:28 PM, said:

Wolf_Odonnell:

I disagree.
I think that I could speak (with some degree of competence) for Atheism generally, and could speak (with probably a little more competence) for Theism generally.
evidently I may never be the perfect representative for either camp, but so what.
An Atheist needn't understand the ways of Atheistic Buddhists in order to successfully argue against the ontological argument and so defend Atheism.
and conversely for theists.

Yes, but in order to do so, you have to strip out a lot. You really have to focus your arguments and even so, your arguments might not be the same as another person's arguments. I personally find Richard Dawkin's book, The God Delusion to be unconvincing, yet I find Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (which Professor Dawkins uses in his book) to be far more concise and better. The appeal of Julian Baggini's book, I find, is that it does its best not to single out any particular religion. In essence, it is very all-encompassing compared to Richard Dawkin's, which although it claims to focus on religion in general, seems more anti-Christian than atheist.

Not that Richard Dawkins doesn't make his fair share of points, but I fail to see how any one person can truly speak for the atheist unless they go out of their way to address all potential atheistic viewpoints.

[GuardianNinja]

How come there are different viewpoints for atheism? Someone who believes there is no evidence for god? Sure you can stack on Buddhists but plain and simple atheism has one viewpoint, that there is no personified god. Some atheists believe in karma, reincarnation, that god is nature, but plain atheism, is easy to explain. I like to think of atheism as the branching point that leads to other things, humanist, Buddhists, Naturalist, ect.

[Egann]

Mark, on 09 February 2010 - 09:28 AM, said:

Egann:

Yeah I thought it would come to definitions.
Ok well, Imm happy to adopt your terms if I can understand them.

you've said: "Agnosticism is believing that 'the truths of some statements' in metaphysics and religion' cannot be tested"

cannot be tested at all? - to any degree of confidence?

if so, then I doubt that anyone is an Agnostic (by your definition), and I would think it a stretch to say that the author even feigns occupancy of this position.
I see that most people will happily admit that If God came down from the heavens in fire and flame and walked on water in front of them - then the seeing of God would be a valid test for his existence.
and in such an event they certainly would believe in God's existence and claim to have knowledge of the fact (although not infallible knowledge to be sure).

if what you mean by Agnosticism is believing that 'the truths of some statements' in metaphysics and religion cannot by testing be made absolutely certain.

if this is what you mean then almost everyone is an Agnostic (by that definition), I'd be one, and I would presume that you would be too.

so I'm still not quite sure what you mean.

I believe the vocabulary of "truths cannot be tested" (which is straight from the wiki article, btw) comes from the Godel's Incompleteness thought experiment. Summarized here and in the spoiler.

Spoiler

Quote

The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:

• Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
• Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
• Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
• Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
• If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
• We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
• "I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal."

Think about it - it grows on you ...

With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ...

Godel managed to prove this within peano arithmetic, but I'm not the one you should ask how. I get the basic idea, but there's no chance I would ever be able to replicate it. The long and the short of it, though, is that there will always be some things which you must regard as 'true' yet you are wholly incapable of proving. It is impossible to have a singular system of anything explain everything, even just in theory.

You can take this a whole bunch of ways. The agnostic takes this to mean that it is impossible to know things about metaphysics, for instance, although most weaken the position greatly to include...other things which don't really go with agnosticism. (I doubt that many would make these connections, but bear in mind that most people -probably myself included- really don't understand what they believe, much less the intellectual history behind how it came to be the way it is.)

You thought Quantum Mechanics made your brain hurt? You ain't seen nuthin' yet!

Spoiler

Personally, I think that the whole thing -the conflict between atheism and theism, agnosticism, etc.- is the equivalent of acne for the adolescence humanity is going through. It started out in the Enlightenment, with humanity on the verge of being arrogant in it's ability to find answers of it's own accord...when in fact it really only makes problems on it's own (Communist Russia and Nazi Germany being the perfect examples.) The way I see things, we still have about 150-200 years of zits left before things start to cool down.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Surely, Egann, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem can only be applied to certain specific systems, namely those concerned with pure maths? Isn't it a bit an overstep for you to try to apply it to the world at large?

Oh and GuardianNinja, yes, that would be ideal, but ultimately when expounding your position on atheism, yhou will inevitably have to talk about atheist ethics and other non-theistic beliefs that aren't really that related to atheism. Although the basic viewpoint that there are no gods is common to most atheists, invariably, other factors have to be discussed and as such, no one atheist can speak up for all atheists in that regard.

This post has been edited by Wolf_ODonnell: 09 February 2010 - 10:57 AM

[Mark]

Wolf_ODonnell, on 10 February 2010 - 01:23 AM, said:

Mark, on 09 February 2010 - 02:28 PM, said:

Wolf_Odonnell:

I disagree.
I think that I could speak (with some degree of competence) for Atheism generally, and could speak (with probably a little more competence) for Theism generally.
evidently I may never be the perfect representative for either camp, but so what.
An Atheist needn't understand the ways of Atheistic Buddhists in order to successfully argue against the ontological argument and so defend Atheism.
and conversely for theists.

Yes, but in order to do so, you have to strip out a lot. You really have to focus your arguments and even so, your arguments might not be the same as another person's arguments. I personally find Richard Dawkin's book, The God Delusion to be unconvincing, yet I find Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Very Short Introduction (which Professor Dawkins uses in his book) to be far more concise and better. The appeal of Julian Baggini's book, I find, is that it does its best not to single out any particular religion. In essence, it is very all-encompassing compared to Richard Dawkin's, which although it claims to focus on religion in general, seems more anti-Christian than atheist.

Not that Richard Dawkins doesn't make his fair share of points, but I fail to see how any one person can truly speak for the atheist unless they go out of their way to address all potential atheistic viewpoints.

I can argue arguments for the position of Atheism - that is to argue against belief in God.
should "truly speaking" for the Atheist mean more than this?

I suppose if I were to try to "truly speak" for Atheists (the people, rather than the hypothetical person who doesn't believe in God) then I would presume the amount of understanding you would need of those people in order to do the task competently would be much more severe.
but even in that case, I presume Atheists occupy a vast range of philosophical, political, and ethical viewpoints, and I presume that there are a reasonably small number things that Atheists generally agree to, so the task may not be that cumbersome anyway; as speaking for Atheists may not be too far above speaking for the Atheist.

the Author of the article seems to be speaking for Atheists, and as she is an Atheist herself I will give her the benefit of the doubt - I am not going to demand infinite qualifications.
she probably wont do a perfect job in representing the general viewpoint of all Atheists - but I am not going to demand perfection.
and I don't think that she need to represent the viewpoint of every individual Atheist (or group of Atheists) in order to do her job - why should she present the views and arguments of the Atheist who thinks the church is a noodle?
for her to do her job properly all she would have to do is propound the views that are generally common to Atheists. right?

This post has been edited by Mark: 09 February 2010 - 11:39 AM

[GuardianNinja]

Egann, on 09 February 2010 - 11:47 AM, said:

Mark, on 09 February 2010 - 09:28 AM, said:

Egann:

Yeah I thought it would come to definitions.
Ok well, Imm happy to adopt your terms if I can understand them.

you've said: "Agnosticism is believing that 'the truths of some statements' in metaphysics and religion' cannot be tested"

cannot be tested at all? - to any degree of confidence?

if so, then I doubt that anyone is an Agnostic (by your definition), and I would think it a stretch to say that the author even feigns occupancy of this position.
I see that most people will happily admit that If God came down from the heavens in fire and flame and walked on water in front of them - then the seeing of God would be a valid test for his existence.
and in such an event they certainly would believe in God's existence and claim to have knowledge of the fact (although not infallible knowledge to be sure).

if what you mean by Agnosticism is believing that 'the truths of some statements' in metaphysics and religion cannot by testing be made absolutely certain.

if this is what you mean then almost everyone is an Agnostic (by that definition), I'd be one, and I would presume that you would be too.

so I'm still not quite sure what you mean.

I believe the vocabulary of "truths cannot be tested" (which is straight from the wiki article, btw) comes from the Godel's Incompleteness thought experiment. Summarized here and in the spoiler.

Spoiler

Quote

The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:

• Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
• Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
• Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
• Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
• If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
• We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
• "I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal."

Think about it - it grows on you ...

With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ...

Godel managed to prove this within peano arithmetic, but I'm not the one you should ask how. I get the basic idea, but there's no chance I would ever be able to replicate it. The long and the short of it, though, is that there will always be some things which you must regard as 'true' yet you are wholly incapable of proving. It is impossible to have a singular system of anything explain everything, even just in theory.

You can take this a whole bunch of ways. The agnostic takes this to mean that it is impossible to know things about metaphysics, for instance, although most weaken the position greatly to include...other things which don't really go with agnosticism. (I doubt that many would make these connections, but bear in mind that most people -probably myself included- really don't understand what they believe, much less the intellectual history behind how it came to be the way it is.)

You thought Quantum Mechanics made your brain hurt? You ain't seen nuthin' yet!

Spoiler

Personally, I think that the whole thing -the conflict between atheism and theism, agnosticism, etc.- is the equivalent of acne for the adolescence humanity is going through. It started out in the Enlightenment, with humanity on the verge of being arrogant in it's ability to find answers of it's own accord...when in fact it really only makes problems on it's own (Communist Russia and Nazi Germany being the perfect examples.) The way I see things, we still have about 150-200 years of zits left before things start to cool down.

wouldnt the machine just not answer the question at all? and call it void.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

GuardianNinja, on 09 February 2010 - 04:44 PM, said:

Egann, on 09 February 2010 - 11:47 AM, said:

Mark, on 09 February 2010 - 09:28 AM, said:

Egann:

Yeah I thought it would come to definitions.
Ok well, Imm happy to adopt your terms if I can understand them.

you've said: "Agnosticism is believing that 'the truths of some statements' in metaphysics and religion' cannot be tested"

cannot be tested at all? - to any degree of confidence?

if so, then I doubt that anyone is an Agnostic (by your definition), and I would think it a stretch to say that the author even feigns occupancy of this position.
I see that most people will happily admit that If God came down from the heavens in fire and flame and walked on water in front of them - then the seeing of God would be a valid test for his existence.
and in such an event they certainly would believe in God's existence and claim to have knowledge of the fact (although not infallible knowledge to be sure).

if what you mean by Agnosticism is believing that 'the truths of some statements' in metaphysics and religion cannot by testing be made absolutely certain.

if this is what you mean then almost everyone is an Agnostic (by that definition), I'd be one, and I would presume that you would be too.

so I'm still not quite sure what you mean.

I believe the vocabulary of "truths cannot be tested" (which is straight from the wiki article, btw) comes from the Godel's Incompleteness thought experiment. Summarized here and in the spoiler.

Spoiler

Quote

The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:

• Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
• Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
• Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
• Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
• If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
• We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
• "I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal."

Think about it - it grows on you ...

With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ...

Godel managed to prove this within peano arithmetic, but I'm not the one you should ask how. I get the basic idea, but there's no chance I would ever be able to replicate it. The long and the short of it, though, is that there will always be some things which you must regard as 'true' yet you are wholly incapable of proving. It is impossible to have a singular system of anything explain everything, even just in theory.

You can take this a whole bunch of ways. The agnostic takes this to mean that it is impossible to know things about metaphysics, for instance, although most weaken the position greatly to include...other things which don't really go with agnosticism. (I doubt that many would make these connections, but bear in mind that most people -probably myself included- really don't understand what they believe, much less the intellectual history behind how it came to be the way it is.)

You thought Quantum Mechanics made your brain hurt? You ain't seen nuthin' yet!

Spoiler

Personally, I think that the whole thing -the conflict between atheism and theism, agnosticism, etc.- is the equivalent of acne for the adolescence humanity is going through. It started out in the Enlightenment, with humanity on the verge of being arrogant in it's ability to find answers of it's own accord...when in fact it really only makes problems on it's own (Communist Russia and Nazi Germany being the perfect examples.) The way I see things, we still have about 150-200 years of zits left before things start to cool down.

wouldnt the machine just not answer the question at all? and call it void.

Actually, no. I watched a documentary about this. I think Alan Turing showed that the machine would loop constantly and would never stop trying to figure out the answer, until it lost power or broke down.

[CID Farwin]

Jasi, bolding mine., on 08 February 2010 - 05:44 PM, said:

I think it's referring to agnosticism vs. gnosticism. It is extremely rare to find a gnostic atheist, but I think you'd be surprised how many theists are gnostic. Not to say that all theists are gnostics--any intelligent human should be an agnostic, in the technical sense of the word.

Using fallacies will not help your point.

[Jasi]

CID Farwin, on 09 February 2010 - 03:51 PM, said:

Jasi, bolding mine., on 08 February 2010 - 05:44 PM, said:

I think it's referring to agnosticism vs. gnosticism. It is extremely rare to find a gnostic atheist, but I think you'd be surprised how many theists are gnostic. Not to say that all theists are gnostics--any intelligent human should be an agnostic, in the technical sense of the word.

Using fallacies will not help your point.

It's not fallacious, it's true. Any sane person would not claim to have absolute knowledge.

[Egann]

Quote

wouldnt the machine just not answer the question at all? and call it void.

Uh...no. Any intelligent HUMAN would, but a machine is not capable of making the needed cognitive leap to 'step out' of the system. Solving problems by stepping out of them and seeing the system as a whole, not one rule at a time- is one of the defining attributes of intelligence. The point with the machine being a machine is that machine is an imaginary incarnation of a single system, while the human mind is able to leap from system to system and even synthesize new systems to solve problems. In a very real sense, the human mind is a 'machine' of sorts...which understands and can make use of Godel's theorems.

That's also exactly why Wolf is right and the machine will loop forever.

Quote

Surely, Egann, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem can only be applied to certain specific systems, namely those concerned with pure maths? Isn't it a bit an overstep for you to try to apply it to the world at large?

In a sense yes, in a sense no. It is true that Godel's theorems were PROVEN only within peano arithmetic, but was the thought experiment which led to the theorem a thought experiment in peano arithmetic? No, it was algorithmic, algebraic, and logical in nature...none of which are peano arithmetic. In fact, Peano Arithmetic is much closer to the great-grandfather of these than it is to being kissing cousins as far as the maths are concerned. And yet the thought experiment is still true. The obvious conclusion in my mind is that the proof is a single demonstration -restricted, for the moment, within Peano Arithmetic because the proof was hard enough even there- while the truth behind that application is much further reaching.

Now time to be cruel and unusual.

You ask me why such a use is not an abuse? Allow me to reverse this. How, if the thought experiment and the theorems themselves can only be expressed in an algorithmic and axiomatic terms, do you justify restricting your own application to just peano arithmetic?

(This is much the same question I ask of agnostics; How, if there is a cognitive barrier between us and metaphysical knowledge, do you justify restricting this barrier to only metaphysics?)

Quote

It's not fallacious, it's true. Any sane person would not claim to have absolute knowledge.

So...what exactly is non-absolute knowledge? How, exactly, do you go about measuring degrees of certainty? Perhaps more to the point, how do you distinguish the kind of 'not knowing's between what happens after death with how many socks are in your drawer? What, exactly, do you mean by 'testable'?

This post has been edited by Egann: 09 February 2010 - 07:06 PM

[Jasi]

Everyone knows you can play the card where you say "well what if we're all in the matrix and nothing we know is real". Hence, we can never know with 100% certainty even the number of socks in your drawer.

[Mark]

Egann.

I am not sure how Godel's incompleteness theorem relates.
the thing seems to state that there will always be some propositions within a system that cannot be proven true or false by use of a particular finite set of axioms within the system.
first I would think that proofs are different from 'tests', but either way, why should the propositions "God Exists" or "God probably does/doesn't exist" be one of them, something which we cannot prove (or 'test' as you have it) by our set of axioms (basic beliefs) in any capacity even in principle.
and yes, if it were how could you know it.

if your idea of Agnosticism features this belief, then I must contend that Agnosticism is an exceedingly rare thing indeed, and I don't think the Author has anything to do with it.

(her admitting that there is no a test that you can do now that can give final indication as to whether or not God does exists, is quite different from claiming that there is no test which even in principle could give any kind of indication)


I think Jazi was simply stating that we should not have infinite confidence in the belief "God does exist" or the belief "God doen't exist".
and by the 'test' of confidence, she and I would probably adopt some 'test' whereby:

a belief A is held with more confidence by a person than belief B, if when there is a conflict between the two and one must be excluded from that persons belief set (and only those beliefs, and to the exclusion of other factors outside of choosing beliefs), then the one with greater confidence will be the one held.

a person has infinite confidence in a particular belief if it is held with (at least) more confidence than any other belief that the person has.


hundreds of years worth of 'zits' lol.

This post has been edited by Mark: 09 February 2010 - 09:02 PM

[GuardianNinja]

CID Farwin, on 09 February 2010 - 04:51 PM, said:

Jasi, bolding mine., on 08 February 2010 - 05:44 PM, said:

I think it's referring to agnosticism vs. gnosticism. It is extremely rare to find a gnostic atheist, but I think you'd be surprised how many theists are gnostic. Not to say that all theists are gnostics--any intelligent human should be an agnostic, in the technical sense of the word.

Using fallacies will not help your point.

Your right, it is a fallacy.. All humans should assume what they don't understand is the work of god..

not quite.

I agree, any intelligent human should not jump to a god, they should be skeptical.

[CID Farwin]

Jasi, on 09 February 2010 - 02:39 PM, said:

CID Farwin, on 09 February 2010 - 03:51 PM, said:

Jasi, bolding mine., on 08 February 2010 - 05:44 PM, said:

I think it's referring to agnosticism vs. gnosticism. It is extremely rare to find a gnostic atheist, but I think you'd be surprised how many theists are gnostic. Not to say that all theists are gnostics--any intelligent human should be an agnostic, in the technical sense of the word.

Using fallacies will not help your point.

It's not fallacious, it's true. Any sane person would not claim to have absolute knowledge.

GuardianNinja, on 09 February 2010 - 07:27 PM, said:

CID Farwin, on 09 February 2010 - 04:51 PM, said:

Jasi, bolding mine., on 08 February 2010 - 05:44 PM, said:

I think it's referring to agnosticism vs. gnosticism. It is extremely rare to find a gnostic atheist, but I think you'd be surprised how many theists are gnostic. Not to say that all theists are gnostics--any intelligent human should be an agnostic, in the technical sense of the word.

Using fallacies will not help your point.

Your right, it is a fallacy.. All humans should assume what they don't understand is the work of god..

not quite.

I agree, any intelligent human should not jump to a god, they should be skeptical.

*ahem*

Your statement, Jasi, that any sane person would not claim absolute knowledge is irrefutable. Anyone who does claim to hold absolute knowledge is, according to this, not sane, therefore doesn't count as a counter-example.

The same goes for claims about any intelligent Human being.

[Jasi]

It's not irrefutable. If you could come up with a good reason as to why a sane person may claim to have absolute knowledge, it would be refuted. Do you believe that a person can have absolute knowledge?

This post has been edited by Jasi: 10 February 2010 - 06:11 PM

[Mark]

well I personally am as convinced as I believe a person possibly can be, as to the truth of the statement "some things - whether facts, objects or properties - do exist". (I suppose I claim Absolute knowledge)
And I think that I'm sane.

This post has been edited by Mark: 11 February 2010 - 01:12 AM