Why I'm a Deist.

[tuxbox]

maybe agnostic is a reasonable self-identifier.

That is my thoughts exactly.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Which is why I identify myself, if pressed, as an Agnostic - since knowledge trumps belief - not just on the issue of the existence of gods (agnostic).

As I've said before, we're all born without consciously knowing anything, and spend the rest of our lives trying to find out what's true or not. Even then, we can't be absolutely certain of anything - our senses may be misinforming us about "reality".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Inferno]

"Agnostic" isn't a position in itself, it's a qualifier to a position.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

"Agnostic" isn't a position in itself, it's a qualifier to a position.

Since we can't know anything for certain, Agnosticism - as against being agnostic about individual things - is a valid position as a perspective on what we can and can't know.

Hence, I'm an Agnostic is valid in the above context.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[tuxbox]

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")


The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")

The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."

Agnosticism is sometimes used colloquially to refer to plurality of beliefs. An agnostic in this case might claim, "The concepts of a universe with or without a God represent intellectual tools that aid our exploration of reality; neither of these ideas are inherently wrong and both bear a useful conceptual utility."

My current position is Weak Agnosticism. I do not lack a belief in god/s, so I can't be an Atheist. I also do not believe in Theistic god/s. Divine intervention makes absolutely zero sense. Therefor, I can't be an Agnostic Theist. If you insist on Agnosticism being a qualifier, then I would be an Agnostic Deist.. That said, I believe you can be Agnostic without it being a qualifier.

 

[Deleted member 619]

That said, I believe you can be Agnostic without it being a qualifier.[/b]

You can't, because the required qualifier is the topic on which you're agnostic.

Incidentally, my view is that the definition of 'weak atheism' you've quoted from Wiki is total bollocks. In the context of the god question, it's entirely redundant. Nobody knows whether or not an entity that could reasonably be described as a deity exists. We simply don't need a term with that definition. You might as well say 'human' or 'ten-toed' for all the information such a definition imparts.

 

[tuxbox]

You can't, because the required qualifier is the topic on which you're agnostic.

I'm agnostic on whether or not deities exist or not. So, I guess I see your point here.

Incidentally, my view is that the definition of 'weak atheism' you've quoted from Wiki is total bollocks. In the context of the god question, it's entirely redundant. Nobody knows whether or not an entity that could reasonably be described as a deity exists. We simply don't need a term with that definition. You might as well say 'human' or 'ten-toed' for all the information such a definition imparts.

You always do this Hackenslash. I put up a definition either from Wikipedia or The New Oxford American Dictionary and you dismiss it out of hand.
Why is that not a valid definition? I checked my dictionary and it says something very similar. So, in your opinion, why is Agnosticism not a valid position?

 

[Deleted member 619]

You always do this Hackenslash. I put up a definition either from Wikipedia or The New Oxford American Dictionary and you dismiss it out of hand.

Pretty sure that explaining why it's bollocks, as I did, doesn't qualify as 'dismissing it out of hand'. Put simply, given that definition, everyone is agnostic, because nobody knows whether or not a deity exists, so the term is redundant under such a definition (or worse, a trivial tautology). It conveys exactly zero information.

Why is that not a valid definition? I checked my dictionary and it says something very similar. So, in your opinion, why is Agnosticism not a valid position?

It's not that it isn't a valid position, it isn't a position on the existence of deities. It's only a position on whether it's possible to know (that's how Huxley used the term when he coined it, and the only useful usage).

BTW, citing dictionaries is a commission of the twin fallacies of argumentum ad populum (because dictionaries describe popular usage) and argumentum ad verecundiam (because dictionaries aren't authorities on what words mean, contrary to popular conceit).

One can be an agnostic theist, in that one can believe that a deity exists but that true knowledge of whether or not a god exists is unknowable, for example.

Agnosticism is a position on the possibility of knowledge, and has no bearing on whether one holds an active belief that a deity exists.

The only mioddle-ground between atheism and theism is deism, which is, AFAIC, little more than a sop to the question. Dawkins called it 'sexed-up atheism'. I disagree, I call it 'tentative atheism' or, more accurately, 'frightened atheism'.

 

[Inferno]

Since we can't know anything for certain, Agnosticism - as against being agnostic about individual things - is a valid position as a perspective on what we can and can't know.

Hence, I'm an Agnostic is valid in the above context.

No it isn't and I think we both know that's bullshit.
Are you agnostic when it comes to Dragons, Pixies and the Tooth-Fairy?

Agnosticism is a scientifically indisputable position to hold with regards to certain things, but it's certainly not a valid or reasonable position.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Since we can't know anything for certain, Agnosticism - as against being agnostic about individual things - is a valid position as a perspective on what we can and can't know.

Hence, I'm an Agnostic is valid in the above context.

No it isn't and I think we both know that's bullshit.
Are you agnostic when it comes to Dragons, Pixies and the Tooth-Fairy?

Agnosticism is a scientifically indisputable position to hold with regards to certain things, but it's certainly not a valid or reasonable position.

Can you be certain of anything?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Greetings,

No it isn't and I think we both know that's bullshit.
Are you agnostic when it comes to Dragons, Pixies and the Tooth-Fairy?

Agnosticism is a scientifically indisputable position to hold with regards to certain things, but it's certainly not a valid or reasonable position.

Can you be certain of anything?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Descartes' Dilemma.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Visaki]

Greetings,

Can you be certain of anything?

Kindest regards,

James

I think I can be certain that I exist. "I think, therefore I am" and all that. Descartes is one of those guys from which most people only know one thing, and I know two.

What "I" am is a totally another question.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I think I can be certain that I exist. "I think, therefore I am" and all that. Descartes is one of those guys from which most people only know one thing, and I know two.

What "I" am is a totally another question.

That wasn't actually what Descartes was saying. There's nothing certain about your existence, or that of anybody else, and Descartes wasn't actually commenting on that, he was simply attempting to find a single foundational assumption on which epistemology could be constructed.

Most people only know one thing about Descartes, and that one thing is wrong.

 

[Visaki]

That wasn't actually what Descartes was saying. There's nothing certain about your existence, or that of anybody else, and Descartes wasn't actually commenting on that, he was simply attempting to find a single foundational assumption on which epistemology could be constructed.

Most people only know one thing about Descartes, and that one thing is wrong.

1 out of 2 isn't that bad

But are you saying that I can't be sure that there is something, an "I", that exists? This is with the caviat that "I" can be pretty much anything from the thing I think "I" am, a material human being, to some kind of, for a lack of better term, program that thinks it's a material being, to manifest dream. Point is that there must be something that exists for me to think that I exist.

Or maybe not. The only philosophy I've studied was a course mostly about the history of philosophers. And some youtube videos.

 

[Deleted member 619]

But are you saying that I can't be sure that there is something, an "I", that exists?

You can be as sure as you like, but the certainty would be misplaced.

This is with the caviat that "I" can be pretty much anything from the thing I think "I" am, a material human being, to some kind of, for a lack of better term, program that thinks it's a material being, to manifest dream. Point is that there must be something that exists for me to think that I exist.

It's certainly true that there is something, but whether it actually correlates to you in any ontological sense is well beyond the limits of epistemology.

Or maybe not. The only philosophy I've studied was a course mostly about the history of philosophers.

One of the great laments I have about philosophy is that even those who do advanced degrees in philosophy learn only about the history of what people have thought, which is why they come away with the mistaked impression that philosophy answers questions, or that simply rattling off ISBN numbers constitutes doing philosophy. It's why, for example, Whitehead defined the history of philosophy as a series of footnotes to Plato.

Philosophy is in a shocking state.

 

[Dustnite]

My current position is Weak Agnosticism. I do not lack a belief in god/s, so I can't be an Atheist. I also do not believe in Theistic god/s. Divine intervention makes absolutely zero sense. Therefor, I can't be an Agnostic Theist. If you insist on Agnosticism being a qualifier, then I would be an Agnostic Deist.. That said, I believe you can be Agnostic without it being a qualifier.

This is why I don't use labels, these semantic arguments are so inane...

FWIW, I think 4 quadrant chart is the most useful at defining where one is on the theism/atheism chart. You can still try to believe that there was a Prime Mover, etc. but you're just invoking the god of the gaps argument to apply a reason to something we have no direct observation for. For that reason, I think it's silly to hold a Deist position.

 

[tuxbox]

Pretty sure that explaining why it's bollocks, as I did, doesn't qualify as 'dismissing it out of hand'. Put simply, given that definition, everyone is agnostic, because nobody knows whether or not a deity exists, so the term is redundant under such a definition (or worse, a trivial tautology). It conveys exactly zero information.

If the position is not defined by information from encyclopedias or dictionaries, then how does one come to a conclusion on what their position is? The information/definition has to come from somewhere, correct?

It's not that it isn't a valid position, it isn't a position on the existence of deities. It's only a position on whether it's possible to know (that's how Huxley used the term when he coined it, and the only useful usage).

BTW, citing dictionaries is a commission of the twin fallacies of argumentum ad populum (because dictionaries describe popular usage) and argumentum ad verecundiam (because dictionaries aren't authorities on what words mean, contrary to popular conceit).

This confuses me?

One can be an agnostic theist, in that one can believe that a deity exists but that true knowledge of whether or not a god exists is unknowable, for example.

Agreed!

Agnosticism is a position on the possibility of knowledge, and has no bearing on whether one holds an active belief that a deity exists.

Gotcha

The only mioddle-ground between atheism and theism is deism, which is, AFAIC, little more than a sop to the question. Dawkins called it 'sexed-up atheism'. I disagree, I call it 'tentative atheism' or, more accurately, 'frightened atheism'.

The thing is, I don't consider myself a Deist any longer. So where does one go from there, Agnostic Atheism, even though I don't necessarily have a lack of belief in god/gods?

 

[tuxbox]

This is why I don't use labels, these semantic arguments are so inane...

FWIW, I think 4 quadrant chart is the most useful at defining where one is on the theism/atheism chart. You can still try to believe that there was a Prime Mover, etc. but you're just invoking the god of the gaps argument to apply a reason to something we have no direct observation for. For that reason, I think it's silly to hold a Deist position.

I agree labels are a pain in the ass, but they have to be used to define a position, do they not?

I know longer consider myself a Deist. The arguments against that position, that have taken place in this thread, have convinced me that it is not a logical position to hold.

As far as that chart inferno posted, well I believe that does not encompass every possible position. For one, it leaves out Deism, Pantheism and several other positions that one might hold.

Deism is not God of the Gaps, if one sees evidence in Nature that a Creator exists, especially if that evidence that they see is inline with current scientific theories. At the most, it makes it an unreasonable position to hold. Where I'm I going wrong here?

 

[surreptitious57]

One cannot be absolutely certain of anything because one is as much an emotional being as a logical one and emotional reasoning can be and
indeed is employed as a means of interpreting so called reality. But I still have to have some foundational basis to interpret it regard less of how
accurate that may be. I am therefore certain beyond reasonable doubt that I exist and that others exist too. Although if for the sake of argument
that is not actually true the illusion is so powerful my brain shall still convince me of it anyway. However I am not certain beyond all doubt of any
thing at all. So one has to suspend some degree of disbelief otherwise one would never accept any thing as true including the evidence of ones
own senses and the reasoning of ones own brain. And therefore upon the basis of probability some things are more likely to be true than others
And that is the basis upon which one should ideally interpret so called reality and the best disciplines for doing so are science and mathematics