Why you can't be an agnostic

Thanks very much for the comment Angela!

Trust means exactly what an agnostic cannot do: "Believe in something without having evidence". In case there was evidence to back the claim of my friend up, there would be need for "trust". What is it that confuses you? Past experiences and past knowledge is not evidence for the specific story I am called to believe in when my friend talks to me. You have a very confusing way of extrapolating "facts" and "evidence" at your own convenience. The same with love. Love is a "choice based on evidence" according to you? So you do not *believe* in love as something you feel but as something you decided upon based on specific pros and cons, on specific "evidence"? Nice...

You need to look up the definition of agnosticism. It is not about believing in something without evidence, it is about not thinking enough evidence exists to support the idea-- enough evidence, not no evidence. I am not extrapolating anything for my own convenience any more than you are. I say your logic is flawed, you disagree obviously, that is your opinion (albeit in error).

Again, yes, love and trust are choices decided upon for whatever reason, I just choose to base mine on facts. You can (and obviously do) "believe" whatever you want based on your "feelings" but THAT is the least scientific idea you have come up with yet. Feelings, really? You have got to be kidding me, that is ridiculous.

What is "enough" evidence? Who defines "enough"? Agnostics? Me? You? Who?
You call feelings ridiculous? Really? What do you mean by that? So when you meet a woman and fall in love with her you do not feel anything for her? When someone falls in love with a woman, is that the result of a cost-benefit analysis? Do you apply cash flow prediction models to see if the relationship will get you through with enough compensation? Love is about giving without expecting anything back. You have completely the wrong knowledge (if any) about love. Sorry about that.

You obviously have a lot of questions, so I will do my best to answer them. Also, you know nothing about me, so please try to keep it semi-professional and not assume or I will just leave you to your discussions with people who think you "went to scholl and still sound like a ...".. well, you read the post.

So moving right along, in my opinion "enough" evidence is defined by the amount of evidence a particular person needs to see to accept an idea. Like I said before, it is defined differently by everyone because nothing can ever be truly "known"-- there is allways a possibillity of another variable that we did not know about. There was a time when men truly "believed" the world to be flat. Maybe the day will come when god, santa clause and the tooth fairy will be accepted as absolute truth, but I doubt it.

You can not use "feelings" and "evidence" in the same argument as both being scientific and expect to be taken seriously. I thought this forum was for imparting knowledge, not saying silly things like:

"... denying the inherent desire of humans to "know", is simply unacceptable...If Socrates, Aristotle and Plato applied agnosticism, then we would still be eating bananas now..."

That does not even make any sense. I see your correlation that we would all be cave men and eat bannanas (which are very tasty), but I think your religious views are getting in the way of whatever scientific mind you may have. No evidence = not real. Period. Having a "little more faith" simply does not cut it and is an excuse for what you can not explain but just "feel". Again, there is a difference between saying that there is not ENOUGH evidence, and saying there is NO tangible evidence, so just have more "faith". That is absurd in any serious circle.

You are utterly mistaken in your analysis of love. First of all, love is a chemical reaction between what the eyes see, the ears hear, touch translates to our brains. After that it is a choice to be made. I know it is not a popular analysis, but that is reality-- deal with it. You do not always "feel" like you are in love, but you make a choice to love someone based on whatever factors you choose to consider, but if it were all based on feelings we would all be divorced. You simplify it by saying cost-benifit analysis is involved, but in fact that is exactly what it is. All animals, humans included, try to get the "best" mate they can considering all the variables (looks, intelligence, fertility) so as to continue the species in the most productive manner possible, and if that is not cost-benefit analysis on the most carnal level, I do not know what is.

Thanks for your reply. I am into discussing everything with everyone and sorry for being somewhat agressive. Agressiveness is what I have as input from almost everyone writting comments here.

To start from the bottom up. Your analysis for love for me is completely wrong. I am sorry but I cannot offer you some more analysis, evidence (I cannot even imagive how those would be) or arguments to convince you that love is something *you* - as a person - feel and not something that anyone - as an objective observer - can decide upon based on specific "scientific" analysis.

For the rest of what you said, I completely and utterly agree with what you say that "No evidence = not real"! That is correct! I never doubted the mechanism of modern science! It is based on evidence and it works well that way! However what I say has nothing to do with what you mention. I simply draw attention to the fact that the "not enough evidence" that agnostics use as an excuse for not having an opinion for some subjects is not a good enough excuse. Notice that I refer to the "not enough" evidence, not the "no evidence at all"!

For example: There are plenty of evidence to show that causality exists in the world. Based on that evidence there is an argument formulated to show the exisence of God, known as the "First Cause Argument" (first postulated by Aristotle, the founder of Logic by the way). I have met many agnostics in my life who do not want to even discuss the subject of God because they "do not have enough evidence". When I present them with the argument they again answer "there is not enough evidence" and stop the discussion. That is to what I am referring to...

Thanks for your reply. I have read some of the comments on here and I can see how it would be very easy to be on the defensive if you are being attacked non-stop. I hope I did not come across that way-- that was not my intention.

Good debate to me is a lot of fun and makes us think, separating us from the gorillas if you will, and I think that is important to keep-up, regardless of whether or not we all agree. If any of us take anything from these discussions, then they have served their purpose.

To me, causality does not indicate the existence of god, but rather the existence of an outside source. An example would be like saying that a watch is so intricate it has to have a maker, and because it has to have a maker, we will invent one and call that maker god. We go around and show everyone our watch and say "look at the beautiful thing god made!". One day someone points out to us that the watch is engraved with initials, and those initials belong to the watchmaker down the street. In fact, god was not the maker of the watch, but Joe the watchmaker was. It is an absurd example, but I hope it illustrates my point.

What I am saying is that just because something seems like it is too intricate to not have a creator does not in and of itself prove the existence of one, and definitely does not point directly at and identify an alleged creator in every setting. Again, my opinion only.

At any rate, I think we have "beat this horse" enough so to speak, so I will sign off for now and look forward to debating with you again sometime.

Excellent answer that puts me in my place. I rest my case. You certainly don't expect me to answer your post. I will not erase it however because of mu education: I respect your opinion. Thanks!

Another excellent answer (like the above) that puts me in my place. I rest my case once again. You certainly don't expect me to answer your post. I will not erase it however because of mu education: I respect your opinion. Thanks!

umm....what? this comment doesn't even make any sense. Learn how to write complete sentences before trying to post next time.

also, he's not trying to push his ideas on anyone. He's simply sharing his reasoning and inviting people to dispute them in an earnest debate.

Be more respectful.

Thanks.

Your first comment that "belief cannot be wrong" sounds a bit metaphysical to me. But I accept it as interesting. My intention was not to "anger" someone. I just post my opinion on matters as you do the same. And the fact that in most of my Knols I say that I do not claim to know the ultimate truth, is a matter of modesty - others posting atheistic articles should consider doing the same. Last but not least, I do not agree that my opinion should be kept to myself, while other atheistic or agnostic opinions are posted here and there.
If a discussion starts from this article, that would be a good thing. But starting a "conflict" with "angered" people that would be something I do not want or wish. If you have an argument towards why claiming "I do not know" can be a valid proposition then I will gladly hear it.

Either way, your comment is accepted and noted. Thanks.

I agree that agnosticism is a form of weak atheism. I could also find some kind of meaning in your very interesting formulation of "levels of consiousness". My arguments are just posted against the opinio of some people that somehow think "believing something" is ok, but "believenig something else" is not. I cannot understand how some agnostics make the (so obvious to them, but not to me) distinction between "questions when having an opinion is ok" and questions that are completely incompatible to "believing something based on what you have as data".

That you can argue philosophically that nothing is for certain is not a compelling defense of religious belief. You can't simply say that we tolerate uncertainty in science so we must tolerate uncertainty in all manner of thought. The degree of certainty has to matter. And on this score, religion and science are worlds apart.

I enjoy your thoughts and comments but at this point I feel that I am contributing to the misuse of the "Knol". Surely there are better forums for this sort of exchange.

Lawrence

Actually I can also argue philosophically about my religious views as well. But that is not the point. As there are philosophical systems which entail a divine entity or a "First Cause", there are also philosophical systems which do not. Science has its limits and so does our knowledge. We *choose* to "forget" that limits when we say "I know". How are the cases when you are allowed to say such a thing defined is what troubles me.
About the "misuse" issue you mention, actually discussing in Knol is the most basic and fundamendal way of knowledge exchange promoted by Knol itself! So keep posting.

Spiros - I have started a discussion on this at religiousforums.com. Here's the direct URL...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/agnostic/79669-why-i-call-myself-agnostic.html

Come and join us!

Lawrence

Thanks for the invitation! I will try to come if I have time!

Actually it all depends on how the agnostic you talk about is responding to a question like "Why does the glass falls when you leave it from 1m height?"...If he answers "Because of the gravity", would that mean that he believes that "gravity" is something "real"? For me the most proper answer would be "According to our current model of understanding, the gravity force is the cause". But does that mean that the current "model" will change? Probably. So does that model represents anything close to the "truth"? My answer is that we can and will never actually "know", since we do not have an objective way to see the "absolute truth". So at the end, simply saying that "Gravity is the cause" (without any explanatory phrase in the beginning of your answer), means that you have "accepted" as "true" the existence of gravitational force. So the point of my article is that: If one is willing to make such a choice in that matter, why does he/she choses to not make ANY choice in other things?
I do not agree with what you say about "recalculating the theory of gravity if it suddently does not apply". If we are to change the law of Newton that would mean that that law is no longer the accepted "truth" in our cosmological models and that we need to search for a new one. Renaming the "shift from one accepted truth to another" to a simple "recalculation" won't change the fact that we know strongly "believe" the gravity to be THE true explanation about the planets moving. That is what we (me included) tell our children that is the "explanation" (truth?) about the moon orbiting the Earth. We are not certain for that "truth". But we consistently fail to mention that uncertainty to our children...

I think you missed some of my arguments. The whole idea of the article was not to "prove" something (and certainly not to prove anything regarding metaphysics which - as I state in my other Knols you read - is the one realm where we cannot be certain about anything). What I wanted to point out was the fact that we everyday use faith to draw to "conclusions", even if that means "faith in logic", "faith in our senses" etc. This is mostly a post-modern philosophical stand and not a religious one. If you challenge Christ that is fine by me. That was the point of the whole argument after all: to challenge everything and to show that drawing "final" conslusions is a matter of faith at the end. So saying "I don't know" in something actually means "I don't want to know", since you never know and will never know anything actually. You choose what to "know". If you think critically, can you present me with ANYTHING at all that you KNOW for certain? Do we have guarantees that anything that we currently "know" will not change tommorow? Are there any ultimate truths out there? If yes, I will gladly hear you and mention them in my article in order to give it more "academic" value...

I am consciously aware of my own conscience, save for anything else in reality I know I must exist if I am perceptive. Also the fallacy of you argument, if you can't know anything for sure and you know you can't know anything for sure you have conflicting premises. (I shouldn't of assumed that much was obvious.)

Same thing with post-modern. (Post = after, modern = present time, post-modern = future) So I pay the form of psychology, whatever dogma it is little mind for that matter as well. I must know English, since I can communicate with proper syntax (given a range of fair room allowing simplification through symbols and a non grammar nazi mind set.) as well.

Furthermore I have no reason to challenge "Christ." I'm challenging your professionalism (though you can dismiss it just fine) on the subject which you claim to be an expert of some kind in. The critical evaluation of your work overall I characterize that to be counter-intuitive to many of the goals you've presented yourself. See your article on What a Christian is Not.

Like Christians, non-Christians are not stupid. If you dismiss the logic you're presented in here, what you're doing is a rather silly method of rhetoric. Probably greek influenced. To assault life's postulates is a fool's game, and yes, postulates require 'faith' (in one presentation of the word) but one's perceptive and cognitive abilities can instill or deny such things with relative ease. When you fall, tell me if gravity is there to catch you.

Also, whoever keeps adding these articles of yours to 'science' seems to not see the general difference between pseudo-sience and actual science. An empirical study and knowledge base typically doesn't fall under the same category as philosophy and religion by default. (or inductive based 'studies'. Such is the nature of deduction based logic.)

Dear Decicio, thanks for your new comment. My answers are below.

1. I did not claim in any of my Knols that I am an "expert", that I know everything or that I am the judge of everything. I simply state my opinion on things. So for the "arrogance" issue you raise, I believe you knocked on the wrong door...

2. The Knol "What a Christian is Not" is a summary of my views posted in two of my other articles. I mention that in the Knol and I believe you noticed that.

3. I did not say that someone is "stupid". This is a result of your free interpretation of my views, which is simply wrong.

4. Rhetoric is a Greek method and I cannot see in what way you mention that. Maybe this is something "bad" or "wrong"?

5. The "If you can't know anything for sure and you know you can't know anything for sure" paradox is a paradox first spotted by Russell in the foundation of mathematics logic. I am not only aware of that, but I also have mentioned it numerous times in many of my articles as a clear example of why our knowledge is limited and arrogant statements like "science helps us reach reality" are not to be taken into consideration without thinking...You use mathematics every day inspite of that antinomy, correct?

6. Science is the systematic search for truth. Empiricism is a philosophical dogma and a very outdated one, I might say. My articles have the purpose to clear such confusions. Please refer to the dictionary of philosophy at http://www.ditext.com/runes/index.html for more on that.

7. Attacking postmodernism based just on its name and not on its content is surely not something you expect me to consider as a valid argument...

8. Saying that "I am consciously aware of my own conscience" seems a little cyclical as a thesis.

9. Most of my Knols are related to the philosophy of science and religion. That is why "science" is one of the categories they are into. I thought that was obvious.

Thanks again for the comments and looking forward to hearing from you again.

1 - Consider it a dismissal to your ability to talk effectively about any one of these subjects then. Shall we? Contrary to the attempt to dispel Ethos, it remains I have little to none as well. My point on the matter is quite simple, you're more 'philosophy' than religion of science. I know little of the former, but the latter is indeed the second most greatest influence on my life. After my fiance, and before Art.

2 - Yes I did, I noticed it and refused to comment on it. Largely because of our differing demographics. I don't know what it's like in Greece, but here in the States we have a majority of us as Christians. (me being about part of the 25% of the population that is excepted from that majority. 5% may be Jew, while another 10% Catholic (why they're not thrown in with the other Christians is beyond me) The rest fall under a rather large 'other' category.) Except in closed circles, I hardly see anyone calling Christians stupid or anything of the sort.

3 - It's a reasonable conclusion, and it's not necessarily accusing you of it. It is implied, potentially. Such as was yours, and such is the nature of the imperfections of language itself. We'll get off the dogmatism of that though, it interferes with the rest of the concept.

4 - "Rhetoric" like, "Math" and "Science" started (debatedly) in Greece. At least, the modern foundations of those subjects did. It's not bad, but I'm referring to your application of rhetoric. Not so much the method itself, because it is consciously and commonly used. My point is, you need word smithing and better structure to support your argument. As well as I'd advice having better outside support, and perhaps a consideration into the effects of pathos you might have on your intended audience.

5 - You're an engineer? Do you use mathematics? Does the design ever not work because of incorrect mathematics? Sometimes. Sometimes it's a failure to adhere and use an art wrong. Secondly, getting into science dogmatism it's very rare and few I run into anyone that believes that science holds all the answers. Science has always been about the Hows, and the Whats of the universe. Rarely ever the Why. (only when used to construct another How) Indeed, Einstein was a Jew and believed in a god even as he helped create the atomic bomb.

Paradoxes are rather humorous. I'd be more inclined to know how such an obvious paradox should be known.

6 - Truth, ie fact. Words are dynamic as I already pointed out. The 'truths' a scientist might seek is different than a truth another art would seek, naturally. This does seemingly support your thesis, but with a clear understanding of Archetype it might seemingly deject it just as well. Ever hear of the story of Sophocles? (I may get this one wrong, past greek literature was never something I enjoyed. He's the guy who was doomed to roll the boulder up the hill day in and out but seemingly didn't hate his fate or something to that effect.) That might be up your alley, and I'd be surprised if you didn't. That has little to do with the argument, just kind of a 'for fun' thing.

7 - Same could be said for attacking Agnosticism based on an old dogmatic understanding of the definition of the word... Perhaps you didn't intend this article as an attack per say... But intention doesn't represent interpretation necessarily.

8 - Cynical? How so? Is your conscience not aware of it's own existence? Perhaps if life were a perpetual dream. Who's to say it isn't? It's still a valid counterpoint once the scope to the perceptual is applied to it. It can be defended, and it is quite certainly a subject that can be put up for defense. It's one of the funniest ones that could be used if it were to be drawn out upon, but would take a lot of time and back and forth arguing. Ironically, truth based on faith arguments dispel any counter argument anyways so chances are I couldn't think of a way to get around it anyways. It's still a point that should be up for consideration in your entire argument.

9 - I'd leave it flatly at 'philosophy.' The definition most scientists (and facilities that govern institutionalized science) would define science as I already have. Empirically, and knowledge based. Knowledge science has already sought to argue to prove through it's own methods, and could be commonly shared experience with discipline. (Hence the Empirical part. For being out of date, it's still the most frequently listed as the most important half of science there is. When it's disregarded scientists tend to talk about how the art itself becomes corrupt as a result, and nothing more than philosophical/religion dogmatic debate.) Psuedo-Science isn't even applicable to your argument, nor Meta-Science. Science shouldn't be a category at all. Ever. This isn't science, nor is this a blog where talking about science and philosophy regarding conduct should constitute the classification of such as science. Any further regards to that fact (what constitutes it...

I see your point. Things are complicated so there isn't a simple answer. However I will try to make my self clear for what I mean when I say that "you can't say you don't have an opinion when it comes to the meaning of your life".
The fact is that philosophy has always wandered what "reality" actually is, what we are, what "exist" means. These questions touch the very beginning of our cosmos and are almost impossible to answer. However man always tried to answer them just because people are always interested in expanding their knowledge (even though that may mean nothing practical for their lifes). Great philosophers from all times have tried to answer these questions, but not because it affected their lifes at an everyday/practical level. Insted, they loved to think on such things because the answers to these metaphysical questions are the ones which shape the "reality" we all live in.
It would be hard for me to understand wht the question "will this apple fall down?" is something that affects your life, but the question "where did we came from?" does not...It would make an immense difference to me if we were created by God, if we were products of chance, if the universe existed for ever, if the universe started existing 15 billion years ago, etc. I do not claim to know the answers to these questions, but I certainly find it extremely important to answer them...

I agree with the "Believing in something is okay as long as you don't state it to be factual". However my intention was not to say that science is not correct - I believe science to be the best so far tool we have to explore the physical world. My intention was not to say that religion is the best tool either. My intention was to pinpoint the fact that we continually express "beliefs" about everything, even when we talk about "scientific" things. So in that context, having an opinion for some things and choosing not to have an opinion for some others does not make sense at all.