first book: early plot question(s)

EdThomas wrote:I hope this doesn't offend anyone. The problem with both sides here is that both believe unknowable things. God does. god doesn't. Discussions like this are really pointless because both sides are correct and wrong, maybe
I describe my self as an agnostic cuz I don't know

Let the force be with you.
Me? I'm a plain old doubting Thomas.
Even the original texts point out that more than one god may be possible.

EdThomas wrote:

I hope this doesn't offend anyone. The problem with both sides here is that both believe unknowable things. God does. god doesn't. Discussions like this are really pointless because both sides are correct and wrong, maybe
I describe my self as an agnostic cuz I don't know

What a tactful way to say that! Thank you very much for being solicitous of my feelings.

I've encountered this discussion mostly with scientific atheists. In particular, atheists who claim that they will not believe anything without proof, and who believe that the scientific method is a good way of finding out about how things are.

The problem, and you may have already discerned it, is the question, "Is the scientific method a good way of finding about how things are?" Possibly belaboring the point, it's possible to answer this question either 'yes' or 'no'. Since the scientific atheist claims not to believe either 'yes' or 'no' without proof, then, to remain consistent, he would have to have proof before believing one way or the other. The problem is how you test that question. The scientific atheist's first tool for testing things is the scientific method, but that method is denied the scientific atheist in answering this question because to use it would be circular reasoning. The scientific method is a good way to find about how things are because the scientific method is a good way to find about how things are.

Ironically, some of those scientific atheists have chastised me for the circular argument, "the bible is reliable because the bible says it is reliable," even when I, personally, didn't advance that argument.

I find myself in disagreement with your claim that discussions like this are pointless. If I agreed with it then I would have to conclude all discussions are pointless, because all discussions depend on believing unknowable things.

~Tonto

EdThomas wrote:I hope this doesn't offend anyone. The problem with both sides here is that both believe unknowable things. God does. god doesn't. Discussions like this are really pointless because both sides are correct and wrong, maybe
I describe my self as an agnostic cuz I don't know

You have stumbled upon my single greatest pet peeve... the extremely widespread misuse of the term "agnostic". (And "atheist" and "theist" for that matter). Apologies in advance for the number of words I'm about to spend on this...



Theism is simply the belief a deity exists. Note that there is no attendant claim to knowledge involved. That is not to say any given theist may not claim to *know* God exists, but only the belief part is required to make a person a theist. Their claim to knowledge is extraneous to that point. So your comment about it being an unknowable thing is irrelevant to the determination of whether a person can legitimately be a theist.

Conversely, atheism is the lack of possession of that belief. Again, no claim to knowledge is involved. (And again, individual atheists may still claim to *know* God doesn't exist but what makes them atheists is simply that they do not believe God does. Any claim to knowledge is a separate consideration.)


Note that those two terms describe a binary solution set. You do, or you do not, have the belief a deity exists resident in your brain. There isn't a third option.


Agnosticism however is the most persistently and egregiously misused term among the three as throngs of people across the internet constantly try to redefine the term to declare it is in fact that non-existent third option. First they either implicitly or explicitly modify the meanings of theism and atheism to include claims to knowledge in order to manufacture a condition in which they can then declare that "I don't know" is a third alternative. You went the implicit route by declaring that "I don't know" was the alternative to atheism and theism.


Agnosticism does not mean "I don't know". The term for that is ignorance. Ignorance is not a philosophical position one stakes out and assigns an "ism" to. (Note that I am not using the term ignorance in a derogatory manner)

Agnosticism means, in very simple terms, the belief that NOBODY CAN know. That as a consequence of the manner in which deity is defined the properties of that entity would make it literally impossible to ever acquire certain knowledge about whether or not it exists. This is where your mention of unknowable things becomes relevant, as that is indeed the exact reason a person would actually be an agnostic.

If you want the complete original definition straight from the guy who invented the term in the first place:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=agnostic

"one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known"

Here's the thing though.

This is not, in any way, a distinct position from theism or atheism. I am an atheist (I have no belief that a God exists). I am ALSO an agnostic (I recognize that due to the various claimed supernatural attributes of this supposed entity it is impossible to test the proposition that it exists).

I know many many theist agnostics as well. Believe God exists, recognize this can never be known for sure.

What there are not are agnostics as an alternative to both theism and atheism existing in their own distinct space separate from either, no matter how hard so very many people try to claim there are.


(Please resist the urge to cite me a dictionary definition of agnosticism that includes among the possible definitions the formulation I have just explained is wrong as a means of attempted rebuttal. The dictionary is supposed to list all usages of a word which are common. Huge numbers of people mean this wrong thing when they use the word. As a result the dictionary will quite properly list it as a definition. That does not change that theism and atheism define a binary condition and this third ground the people using the term in that manner are attempting to claim they occupy is non-existent.)

Tonto Silerheels wrote:EdThomas wrote:

I hope this doesn't offend anyone. The problem with both sides here is that both believe unknowable things. God does. god doesn't. Discussions like this are really pointless because both sides are correct and wrong, maybe
I describe my self as an agnostic cuz I don't know

What a tactful way to say that! Thank you very much for being solicitous of my feelings.

I've encountered this discussion mostly with scientific atheists. In particular, atheists who claim that they will not believe anything without proof, and who believe that the scientific method is a good way of finding out about how things are.

The problem, and you may have already discerned it, is the question, "Is the scientific method a good way of finding about how things are?" Possibly belaboring the point, it's possible to answer this question either 'yes' or 'no'. Since the scientific atheist claims not to believe either 'yes' or 'no' without proof, then, to remain consistent, he would have to have proof before believing one way or the other. The problem is how you test that question. The scientific atheist's first tool for testing things is the scientific method, but that method is denied the scientific atheist in answering this question because to use it would be circular reasoning. The scientific method is a good way to find about how things are because the scientific method is a good way to find about how things are.

Ironically, some of those scientific atheists have chastised me for the circular argument, "the bible is reliable because the bible says it is reliable," even when I, personally, didn't advance that argument.

I find myself in disagreement with your claim that discussions like this are pointless. If I agreed with it then I would have to conclude all discussions are pointless, because all discussions depend on believing unknowable things.

~Tonto

It is true that no one escapes without some sort of faith. Even an agnostic has to believe that there are ways in which the world is reliable in order to make his way through life.

Your choice is not whether or not you are going to make a bet, but rather where the wager is going to be placed.

Don

gcomeau wrote:

EdThomas wrote:I hope this doesn't offend anyone. The problem with both sides here is that both believe unknowable things. God does. god doesn't. Discussions like this are really pointless because both sides are correct and wrong, maybe
I describe my self as an agnostic cuz I don't know

You have stumbled upon my single greatest pet peeve... the extremely widespread misuse of the term "agnostic". (And "atheist" and "theist" for that matter). Apologies in advance for the number of words I'm about to spend on this...



Theism is simply the belief a deity exists. Note that there is no attendant claim to knowledge involved. That is not to say any given theist may not claim to *know* God exists, but only the belief part is required to make a person a theist. Their claim to knowledge is extraneous to that point. So your comment about it being an unknowable thing is irrelevant to the determination of whether a person can legitimately be a theist.

Conversely, atheism is the lack of possession of that belief. Again, no claim to knowledge is involved. (And again, individual atheists may still claim to *know* God doesn't exist but what makes them atheists is simply that they do not believe God does. Any claim to knowledge is a separate consideration.)


Note that those two terms describe a binary solution set. You do, or you do not, have the belief a deity exists resident in your brain. There isn't a third option.


Agnosticism however is the most persistently and egregiously misused term among the three as throngs of people across the internet constantly try to redefine the term to declare it is in fact that non-existent third option. First they either implicitly or explicitly modify the meanings of theism and atheism to include claims to knowledge in order to manufacture a condition in which they can then declare that "I don't know" is a third alternative. You went the implicit route by declaring that "I don't know" was the alternative to atheism and theism.


Agnosticism does not mean "I don't know". The term for that is ignorance. Ignorance is not a philosophical position one stakes out and assigns an "ism" to. (Note that I am not using the term ignorance in a derogatory manner)

Agnosticism means, in very simple terms, the belief that NOBODY CAN know. That as a consequence of the manner in which deity is defined the properties of that entity would make it literally impossible to ever acquire certain knowledge about whether or not it exists. This is where your mention of unknowable things becomes relevant, as that is indeed the exact reason a person would actually be an agnostic.

If you want the complete original definition straight from the guy who invented the term in the first place:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=agnostic

"one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known"

Here's the thing though.

This is not, in any way, a distinct position from theism or atheism. I am an atheist (I have no belief that a God exists). I am ALSO an agnostic (I recognize that due to the various claimed supernatural attributes of this supposed entity it is impossible to test the proposition that it exists).

I know many many theist agnostics as well. Believe God exists, recognize this can never be known for sure.

What there are not are agnostics as an alternative to both theism and atheism existing in their own distinct space separate from either, no matter how hard so very many people try to claim there are.


(Please resist the urge to cite me a dictionary definition of agnosticism that includes among the possible definitions the formulation I have just explained is wrong as a means of attempted rebuttal. The dictionary is supposed to list all usages of a word which are common. Huge numbers of people mean this wrong thing when they use the word. As a result the dictionary will quite properly list it as a definition. That does not change that theism and atheism define a binary condition and this third ground the people using the term in that manner are attempting to claim they occupy is non-existent.)

From what I've learned:
Atheist - No Deity
Agnostic - has the view that the religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.
Gnostic: their is a creative force at work, the composition unknown.

TN4994 wrote:From what I've learned:
Atheist - No Deity

No belief in deity.

Agnostic - has the view that the religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

Definitely unknowable, otherwise yep.

Gnostic: their is a creative force at work, the composition unknown.

Gnosticism's weird, the relationship between gnosticism and agnosticism isn't just the straightforward negation that the form of those words would suggest. I've honestly only given it a cursory looking at... just enough to know they make a bunch of wacky claims about the nature of reality and how things got here...

gcomeau wrote:

Apologies in advance for the number of words I'm about to spend on this...

Thank you for that! I think I may have read what you linked of Huxley's before, but it was so long ago that I couldn't have dredged it up from my memory.

I judge myself to be somewhat more of a subscriptivist when it comes to semantics, whereas I judge you to be somewhat more of a prescriptivist. I remember hearing the claim that atheist, meaning 'without-god,' was a term applied by Christians to all people who don't believe one or more gods exist--modern day atheists and agnostics.

I recall another person dividing it out amongst hard atheists, soft atheists, hard agnostics, and soft agnostics. According to his definitions a hard atheist believes that enough evidence that no god exists is available for reasonable people to decide that none does. A soft atheist believes that no god exists. A hard agnostic believes that whether some god exists is unknowable (ala Huxley). And a soft agnostic believes neither that a god exists nor that one doesn't.

I usually try to determine the meaning from the context.

~Tonto

gcomeau wrote:

Gnosticism's weird, the relationship between gnosticism and agnosticism isn't just the straightforward negation that the form of those words would suggest.

My understanding is that gnosticism is an early Christian heresy wherein a person's salvation is achieved through gaining (spiritual) knowledge.

~Tonto

gcomeau wrote:

TN4994 wrote:From what I've learned:
Atheist - No Deity

No belief in deity.

Agnostic - has the view that the religious claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

Definitely unknowable, otherwise yep.

Gnostic: there is a creative force at work, the composition unknown.

Gnosticism's weird, the relationship between gnosticism and agnosticism isn't just the straightforward negation that the form of those words would suggest. I've honestly only given it a cursory looking at... just enough to know they make a bunch of wacky claims about the nature of reality and how things got here...

It's so much easier being a heritic.

Tonto Silerheels wrote:gcomeau wrote:

Gnosticism's weird, the relationship between gnosticism and agnosticism isn't just the straightforward negation that the form of those words would suggest.

My understanding is that gnosticism is an early Christian heresy wherein a person's salvation is achieved through gaining (spiritual) knowledge.

~Tonto

That's right. Usually the knowlege was regarded as privileged to the diciples of the gnostic teacher who in turn had received a secret revelation from an apostle or other prominent religious figure. Platonism was often the philosophical founation for this.

Don