BBC : Agnostics

pH

Most Read story currently on the BBC site!


"But there is one voice that is squeezed out, partly because it can equivocate, partly because it tires of the tit-for-tat that the debate is so often reduced to. That is the agnostic."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6199716.stm

5uspect

looks intersting, some of the comments at the end are worth a read...

Zombrex

pH wrote:

"But there is one voice that is squeezed out, partly because it can equivocate, partly because it tires of the tit-for-tat that the debate is so often reduced to. That is the agnostic."

Bloody fence sitters

pH

Wicknight wrote:

Bloody fence sitters

Yep I was going to add a comment like:
Those with no opinion are moaning that their "no opinion" isn't being listened to!

fence sitters indeed!

5uspect

no belief, no opinion, whats the difference?

Scofflaw

You boys looking for a fight, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

You boys looking for a fight, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Might be ... on the other hand maybe not, can't make up my mind.


Indecisively,
pH

maitri

pH wrote:

Yep I was going to add a comment like:
Those with no opinion are moaning that their "no opinion" isn't being listened to!

fence sitters indeed!

Hmmm..I don’t think agnosticism means that you cannot have opinions. As Huxley (scroll down on link, BTW nice little article about agnosticism) said:

”Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle.” (" Agnosticism," 1889)

This principle can be expressed like this:

“In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.” (" Agnosticism," 1889)

As I see it, agnosticism is really a principle of honesty. We do not want to say that we have knowledge when in fact we don’t. Especially when it comes to questions about things that are “transcendent” knowledge seems to be impossible. Like Huxley who originated the term "agnosticism" said:

“…it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.” ("Agnosticism and Christianity," 1889)

It doesn’t mean that somebody who defines herself as "an agnostic" can’t have opinions about what she doesn’t know, it only means that she will not forget that those opinions are not based on knowledge and therefore they won’t (ideally) be so strong that they prevent her from having an open mind or forget the fact that they might turn out to be wrong.
More Huxley:

“The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.” (" Agnosticism," 1889)

Ah, here we go again...:D

Scofflaw wrote:

You boys looking for a fight, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, I think they want a nice little fight again...:p

Zombrex

maitri wrote:

As I see it, agnosticism is really a principle of honesty. We do not want to say that we have knowledge when in fact we don’t. Especially when it comes to questions about things that are “transcendent” knowledge seems to be impossible.

Yes but people always think that atheists are stating that they know God doesn't exist, as if they have some kind of proof ("I looked, he isn't there"). They aren't. They are stating that we know we invented the concept of gods in the first place as a way of explaining and easing the trouble that comes from trying to comprehend a universe beyond our understanding. It is therefore very very unlikely, to the point of being certain, that the "thing" we invented would actually exist in real life. Its like saying "Dragons don't exist". I can state that, not because I have actually looked everywhere that a dragon might be and found none, but because I know that "dragons" were an attempt by humanity to process observations and tales of "monsters" that most likely were the lizards found in Africa, such as crocodiles. Crocodiles do exist, but they are not dragons.

This brings me nicely to the way modern theists often get around definitions of God by vastly altering the definition of what "God" is. All of a sudden "God" can be pretty much anything, from something or anything that may or may not have intelligently created the big bang, to any form of presence or alien intelligence that exists outside our universe.

So I cannot be atheists when it comes to the idea that something, somewhere, outside our universe, might be intelligent and possess the power to alter our universe in some way. To that I'm agnostic, because as is pointed out, one cannot know for sure and when you are talking about things that transcend the physical nature of our universe it would be quite ignorant to presume that to know. But I can be sure that we, with out limited imagination and the need to invent religious constructs in order to process the world around us, would be largely unaware of what this thing actually is or is not, just as early Europeans were not aware of what a "crocodile" actually was. In this way I can state that what ever it is, if it exists, it is not "God", just as the crocodile was not a dragon.

Rant, over.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but people always think that atheists are stating that they know God doesn't exist, as if they have some kind of proof ("I looked, he isn't there"). They aren't. They are stating that we know we invented the concept of gods in the first place as a way of explaining and easing the trouble that comes from trying to comprehend a universe beyond our understanding. It is therefore very very unlikely, to the point of being certain, that the "thing" we invented would actually exist in real life. Its like saying "Dragons don't exist". I can state that, not because I have actually looked everywhere that a dragon might be and found none, but because I know that "dragons" were an attempt by humanity to process observations and tales of "monsters" that most likely were the lizards found in Africa, such as crocodiles. Crocodiles do exist, but they are not dragons.

This brings me nicely to the way modern theists often get around definitions of God by vastly altering the definition of what "God" is. All of a sudden "God" can be pretty much anything, from something or anything that may or may not have intelligently created the big bang, to any form of presence or alien intelligence that exists outside our universe.

So I cannot be atheists when it comes to the idea that something, somewhere, outside our universe, might be intelligent and possess the power to alter our universe in some way. To that I'm agnostic, because as is pointed out, one cannot know for sure and when you are talking about things that transcend the physical nature of our universe it would be quite ignorant to presume that to know. But I can be sure that we, with out limited imagination and the need to invent religious constructs in order to process the world around us, would be largely unaware of what this thing actually is or is not, just as early Europeans were not aware of what a "crocodile" actually was. In this way I can state that what ever it is, if it exists, it is not "God", just as the crocodile was not a dragon.

Rant, over.

And not a teapot in sight...

Well, I would agree with nearly all of that, except of course that the fact that humanity have invented a concept in order to explain something does not automatically mean that the concept is a fiction - after all, that makes fiction of all science.

To take a more concrete example: if we are presented with an apparent murder, we use the concept of 'a murderer' to explain it. We do not know the identity of 'a murderer', or even whether there really is one in this case. Sometimes we are not actually looking at a murder, sometimes we will never identify the murderer, sometimes we will get the wrong person.

However, what we are using here is fundamentally a fictional agent - and in exactly the same way as we use God as a fictional agent. That does not detract from the reality of murderers - why is the same not the case for God?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, I would agree with nearly all of that, except of course that the fact that humanity have invented a concept in order to explain something does not automatically mean that the concept is a fiction - after all, that makes fiction of all science.

True, but one does have to look at the characteristics of a concept to how it might have come about. In the case of "gods" it seems pretty clear (to me at least) that the concept of gods is applying human behaviour as explanation for what we see happening in nature. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference between explaining lightning as coming from Thor's hammer, as explaining that God produced humans to worship him. It is all about bring questions back to human behaviour, because human behaviour is how our brains are designed to process interactions in the world. Something happened because someone made it happen. We, as a species, don't seem to like attributing events, especially significant events, to the actions of nature alone. This also accounts for ideas such as fate, the idea that events in nature are some how planned, mapped out, by something or someone, even if that someone is simply nature itself.

So again this makes it even less likely that concepts we invent to explain the universe, based on our own necessity to think about the universe in terms of human behaviour, such as god or gods, are actually representations of real life entities.

Scofflaw wrote:

However, what we are using here is fundamentally a fictional agent - and in exactly the same way as we use God as a fictional agent. That does not detract from the reality of murderers - why is the same not the case for God?

Because we have actually observed murders before, a lot. Not every death is going to be a murder, but murder is still a real concept. The act of murder is a well observed phenomena and fits quite well with everything else we know and have observed about human behaviour. People kill other people. That is a fact. People kill other people for bad reasons. That is also a fact.

A better example is alien abduction. Has anyone ever actually properly recorded an alien abduction? Do we meet aliens in everyday life, and therefore could easily imagine that one of the many aliens we meet each day could conceivable abduct someone?

Since aliens are not an every day occurrence the question becomes why is an extra-ordinary explanation being given for this event? Are there any more ordinary explanations that are more an every day occurrence? Yes, in fact there are. Tons. Everything from drunkenness to secret USAF fighter jets. You have to look at where then the concept of alien abduction would come from in the first place, and why people would jump to claim alien abduction over a more mundane but possibly more complicated explanation. Again, like gods, it is easier to say that "someone did this", that to try and explain a series of natural occurrences or phenomena that could also explain it. The "someone did this" explanation is much more desirable to a human searching to fit events like these into their model of the world, and as such humans are much more likely to jump to these conclusions, even if they are not actually true.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

True, but one does have to look at the characteristics of a concept to how it might have come about. In the case of "gods" it seems pretty clear (to me at least) that the concept of gods is applying human behaviour as explanation for what we see happening in nature. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference between explaining lightning as coming from Thor's hammer, as explaining that God produced humans to worship him. It is all about bring questions back to human behaviour, because human behaviour is how our brains are designed to process interactions in the world. Something happened because someone made it happen. We, as a species, don't seem to like attributing events, especially significant events, to the actions of nature alone. This also accounts for ideas such as fate, the idea that events in nature are some how planned, mapped out, by something or someone, even if that someone is simply nature itself.

So again this makes it even less likely that concepts we invent to explain the universe, based on our own necessity to think about the universe in terms of human behaviour, such as god or gods, are actually representations of real life entities.

Hmm. Again, that a concept is psychologically comfortable does not make it wrong (except possibly in physics).

I'm not disputing your analysis of the mechanism, of course - we've seen repeatedly on other threads that some people absolutely cannot conceive of actions without agency. Also, it's clear that many personifications are not intended to be taken seriously - Death is a good example (pace Pratchett).

Wicknight wrote:

Because we have actually observed murders before, a lot. Not every death is going to be a murder, but murder is still a real concept. The act of murder is a well observed phenomena and fits quite well with everything else we know and have observed about human behaviour. People kill other people. That is a fact. People kill other people for bad reasons. That is also a fact.

It remains that the first murder involved said psychological leap. As to the rest - well, a psychological leap is required for every person (every detective, for example) the first time they personally are presented with an apparent murder. Unfortunately for your case, God is at least as well-attested in culture and history books as murder.

Wicknight wrote:

A better example is alien abduction. Has anyone ever actually properly recorded an alien abduction? Do we meet aliens in everyday life, and therefore could easily imagine that one of the many aliens we meet each day could conceivable abduct someone?

Since aliens are not an every day occurrence the question becomes why is an extra-ordinary explanation being given for this event? Are there any more ordinary explanations that are more an every day occurrence? Yes, in fact there are. Tons. Everything from drunkenness to secret USAF fighter jets. You have to look at where then the concept of alien abduction would come from in the first place, and why people would jump to claim alien abduction over a more mundane but possibly more complicated explanation. Again, like gods, it is easier to say that "someone did this", that to try and explain a series of natural occurrences or phenomena that could also explain it. The "someone did this" explanation is much more desirable to a human searching to fit events like these into their model of the world, and as such humans are much more likely to jump to these conclusions, even if they are not actually true.

It's not a 'better example'...it's an 'example' that demonstrates more clearly where you think the fallacy is! Not the same thing at all...tsk tsk.

Alien abductions aren't about explaining anything, really. In many cases there is no evidence whatsoever that the person had gone missing in the first place, whereas the Universe requires an explanation (or rather humans require an explanation for the Universe).

We've been over this ground before - all your explanations work well when one considers the question of God de novo - in the absence of anyone else's claims, any historic evidence/claims, any cultural claims etc etc. None of this is the case.

There is no human society I know of, no matter how primitive or isolated, that does not have some conception of a non-physical world, usually populated by entities of more or less power. Clearly atheism is not, then, the default human position - the default human position is religion.

Given that is the case, and that God has been presented as a possibility, atheism (in the sense of rejecting all possible deities) is not defensible. One can be atheist about any given God (and virtually all believers are, of course) - one can also be atheist about all known gods. These positions are perfectly tenable - all described gods are disprovable.

Functional atheism (or alatrism as I am prone to call it) is tenable - a simple recognition that 'no worshippable deity provably exists'. However, the properly atheistic assertion that 'no gods exist' is not logically tenable - it is a statement of faith.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

There is no human society I know of, no matter how primitive or isolated, that does not have some conception of a non-physical world, usually populated by entities of more or less power. Clearly atheism is not, then, the default human position - the default human position is religion.

The fact that 85%(?) of people choose to either believe what they are taught as children by adults, or make something up does not make it a default position in my view. Religion will not be default in my house for example.

Scofflaw wrote:

However, the properly atheistic assertion that 'no gods exist' is not logically tenable - it is a statement of faith.

Here come the teapots.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. Again, that a concept is psychologically comfortable does not make it wrong (except possibly in physics).

True but it does mean that it is likely made up, and it would be quite a conincidence if someone humans made up just happened to exist. It also gives an explination for how the concept could arise in culture while still being wrong. Often the arguement used by theists is that there must be some weight to be put in the fact that every culture in the world believes in some form of supernatural entity that creates and controls nature

Scofflaw wrote:

It remains that the first murder involved said psychological leap.

Not really. The "first murder" is actually a person realising that they have to power to kill someone else. We then realise that murder is a real concept, because we realise we have the power to actually do it. Therefore with any future deaths we observe we will consider that murder is a possibility until it is ruled out.

The vast majority of people won't use this knowledge, but the knowledge still exists. If I wanted to I could kill my boss (probably should nto be writing this a work ), or the bus driver, or the woman in Spar. I don't of course, but the realisation that it is possibility is there.

The problem with a "god" is that I'm not a god so I cannot relate what it is claimed god can do to what I can do. I cannot make life, or create a universe.

Scofflaw wrote:

Unfortunately for your case, God is at least as well-attested in culture and history books as murder.

Well if it was simply a matter of who has the most pages in books we would all think the X-Men were real people. The concept of how and why these things were written is far more important than simply how much literature exists about them.

Scofflaw wrote:

It's not a 'better example'...it's an 'example' that demonstrates more clearly where you think the fallacy is! Not the same thing at all...tsk tsk.

It is a "better" example

The reason it is a better example is because, as I said, we are not constantly surrounded by evidence of aliens, or God, while we are constantly surrounded by murder, and murder is something we actually can do. And we cannot imagine what it an alien or God would actually be like, while we can imagine what a murder would be like, since murder is something in our power to actually do. I cannot be a God, nor can I abduct people in my space ship, but I can murder someone (luckly for the rest of you I don't want to )

Murder is not simply something we read about, and then assume is possible because we have read it happens. We realise it is possible when we realise we could actually do it. If I did not believe I could actually kill someone I probably would not believe stories of other people doing it. This phenomena is seen in cases of crimes such as the rape of a man by a female. A lot of people, both male and female, can't actually imagine this happening. I personally have a hard time imagining how a woman could actually rape me against my will. As such we are far more skeptical about claims of such events that we read about.

Scofflaw wrote:

Alien abductions aren't about explaining anything, really.

Most of the time they are an explanation given to something that someone saw but they don't understand (a weather balloon, a fighter jet etc), that then involved them going missing (ie getting drunk, having a medical emergency etc). Or they are used as excuses for certain behaviour, or in some extreme cases, to cover a crime or assault.

As you said, humans require explanations for events. We tend to pick the explanation that more closely resembles acts of comprehendable human behaviour over other explanations that involve natural processess, or incomprehsensiable human behaviour. We also tend to pick explanations that make us appear special and important, or in some cases to deflect from something that would make us appear weak or embrassed.

This, again, is why I choose alien abductions as a good example. Given the option between believing that you saw a 747 pass over head and then hit your head off tree, or that you were raped by your father out by the airport, people will believe that they were picked up by aliens, who choose them specifically, and that they have an amazing story to tell.

There are very few religions that don't believe that they are specially choosen by a god or gods, either at random or because of the deeds they did, to be saved from something (most of the time its death). There are very few religions that don't use a god or gods to explain something over a natural explination. There are very few religions that religion itself, and the god at its center, doesn't provide something that the worshipers require emotionally.

Scofflaw wrote:

Clearly atheism is not, then, the default human position - the default human position is religion.

That is true.

But to me that is an explanation of why we invent gods, not a reason to suspect that such gods actually exist. This fact makes me more of an atheist, because of the realisation that the concept of a "god" is a by product of how our brains work, a produce of human nature, not something real.

Scofflaw wrote:

One can be atheist about any given God (and virtually all believers are, of course) - one can also be atheist about all known gods. These positions are perfectly tenable - all described gods are disprovable.

But that is kinda the point. What is a non-described god?

"God" is a human concept, a human invention. As The Atheists has pointed out a few times, if some intelligence exists out there that we are not aware of, it is not a god, since the concept of god referrers to the human idea of what a god is, and the human idea of what a god is is imaginary. What ever it is then it is that, it is not a "god"

That was my point out the crocodiles. Early europeans called them "dragons" because they did not understand or comprehend the idea of lizards or crocodiles. As our understand developed, and we actually studied these creatures, we developed the actually concept of "a crocodile". But "dragons" as a concept don't exist, they never did. "Dragons" is the made up concept.

Likewise "gods" don't exist, we invented the concept. If something is actually out there, if there is some intelligence that ultimately created the universe, it is not a "god", any more than a crocodile was a dragon. It is something else, something undefined, and if we ever discover it then we will give it a actual concept.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

The fact that 85%(?) of people choose to either believe what they are taught as children by adults, or make something up does not make it a default position in my view. Religion will not be default in my house for example.

Nor in mine. However, if 85% of all (say) cameras came with the quality set to Low, that would certainly be described as the 'default setting'.

Wicknight wrote:

The reason it is a better example is because, as I said, we are not constantly surrounded by evidence of aliens, or God, while we are constantly surrounded by murder, and murder is something we actually can do. And we cannot imagine what it an alien or God would actually be like, while we can imagine what a murder would be like, since murder is something in our power to actually do.

Except that clearly people do think they can imagine what a god, or an alien, is like - you point out yourself that they spend a lot of time doing so!

Also, we are surrounded by evidence of God (duck below wall, wait for shouting to die down). There is a huge mass of public architecture devoted to him! What's that you say? That isn't evidence for God? Get away! Next you'll claim that stations aren't evidence of trains, or that all archaeology is a fiction. Also, once you're a believer (which is, as we've established, the default human position), all sorts of things are 'evidence for God'.

Oh, I know, we can see through all that....the point is that there is something to see through. Only if there wasn't, would atheism be a logically tenable position.

Wicknight wrote:

What is a non-described god?

The Deist God. Many people's 'primal force', etc.

Wicknight wrote:

"God" is a human concept, a human invention. As The Atheists has pointed out a few times, if some intelligence exists out there that we are not aware of, it is not a god, since the concept of god referrers to the human idea of what a god is, and the human idea of what a god is is imaginary. What ever it is then it is that, it is not a "god"

Tut tut. You are begging the question.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

Also, we are surrounded by evidence of God (duck below wall, wait for shouting to die down). There is a huge mass of public architecture devoted to him! What's that you say? That isn't evidence for God? Get away! Next you'll claim that stations aren't evidence of trains, or that all archaeology is a fiction. Also, once you're a believer (which is, as we've established, the default human position), all sorts of things are 'evidence for God'.

It's this kind of silliness that makes me not take you too seriously, and sometimes think either you're trolling or deliberately picking arguments for the sake of them.

Public architecture devoted to 'him' is surely evidence that people do worship God, but to argue it constitutes evidence for his existence is, quite frankly bizarre.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Except that clearly people do think they can imagine what a god, or an alien, is like - you point out yourself that they spend a lot of time doing so!

You missed the "because it is something I can do" end of the sentence, which is the important bit.

I can imagine what a duck is like, because I have a frame of reference based in the real world for this image. I can imagine how to kill someone, because I would use the same systems I use to walk, hit, cook the dinner, to kill someone. For example, if I wanted to kill someone by driving over them I would use the same real world knowledge of driving a car, I would just drive the car into the person.

Aliens, or gods, are a different kettle of fish. I can't imagine what an alien looks like, since I have no frame of reference for this. Which is why you get the phenomena of people making out "little green men" when they describe aliens. It is quite unlikely that a real alien would look anything like us, but because we as a species relate back to what we know, when someone invents an image of an alien it amazingly looks like a human. Same with God. When God is draw He looks like an adult male, strangly enough.

You are looking at step B, imagining something, and ignoring step A, how people come to this image in the first place. All imaginings are not the same. Step A is more important than Step B.

Imagining how to drive a car is not the same as imaginging how to drive a star fighter. One is based on experience grounded in experience and reality, the other is based on these experiences applied to fantasy. And it is easy to spot which is which, because in nearly all sci-fi movies (eg Star Wars), star fighters are designed to look like planes, when in fact that would be a pretty silly design for moving in a vaccum.

Scofflaw wrote:

Also, once you're a believer (which is, as we've established, the default human position), all sorts of things are 'evidence for God'.

Oh, I know, we can see through all that....the point is that there is something to see through. Only if there wasn't, would atheism be a logically tenable position.

Yes, though I'm not sure you are getting the point.

There is no evidence that God doesn't exist, except for the fact that we made him up.

It is not simply a case that there is no actual evidence God exists (which is true). It is also, on top of that, the fact that we invented gods in the first place to fufill a specific human requirement. This makes the odds even smaller.

Take Star Gate SG-1. In that show everyone, including the alien species, speak English. Now it is actually not possible to claim that aliens don't speak English, since we have never met any aliens. So you can't say that StarGate SG-1 is not actually truthful to reality.

But examining the show the question is why does everyone speak English on StarGate? They do so because that is an easy way to produce a TV series. The fact that they speak English has no relationship to the question do aliens speak English.

I can say that aliens don't speak English, though I don't actually know this. The logistics of how that would actually happen are too fantastical to be plausable. And the only reason I would consider the question in the first place is because of shows like StarGate, and the only reason they have aliens speaking english is because it is easy.

The only reason we consider the concept of a "god" at all is because someone invented it, just like the only reason we consider the question "do aliens speak english" is because a lot of TV shows have aliens speaking english. But this fact is not some how weight to the idea that aliens in fact do speak english. Aliens don't speak english, I can say that with a lot of confidence, despite the fact that I have never met an alien.

Atheism is a rejection of god as being a human invention in the same way that one would reject the concept of aliens speaking english on a show like StarGate.

Even if by some cosmic fluke aliens speak a language exactly the same as English, it is still not English, just like a crocodile is not a dragon. It would be what ever language they speak, but it wouldn't be English.

Scofflaw wrote:

The Deist God. Many people's 'primal force', etc.

That seems pretty described.

Scofflaw wrote:

Tut tut. You are begging the question.

Not really.

Begging the question implies that my argument that God is a human invention is not true. I think it has been established it is true. The question then remains even if God is a human invention, does that mean that it does not also exist, even by some cosmic fluke.

I would say unlikely to the point of being certain. Hence I'm an atheist.

I would suppose that the odds that the human invention of God actually some how managed to be spot on to a real entity are about the same as the odds that alien life in the galaxy some how by a similar fluke managed to all speak English like on the TV program StarGate SG-1.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Nor in mine. However, if 85% of all (say) cameras came with the quality set to Low, that would certainly be described as the 'default setting'.

If the camera comes out of the box set on on "low" then that certainly is the default position. However, you, me and everyone else here came "out of the box" an atheist. If someone switched the setting, or we switched it ourselves then it ain't default.

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

It's this kind of silliness that makes me not take you too seriously, and sometimes think either you're trolling or deliberately picking arguments for the sake of them.

Public architecture devoted to 'him' is surely evidence that people do worship God, but to argue it constitutes evidence for his existence is, quite frankly bizarre.

It's a theistic argument - concrete evidence for belief in God is evidence for God unless God doesn't exist. If God does exist, which the theist accepts as true, then belief in God is evidence for God.

However, that wasn't really the point. The point is that while the atheist claims that atheism is logical because it requires no assumptions, that is not true. Taking the traditional 'person kept in a box until maturity' (the PKBM for short) we find that, once out, they are presented at every turn with monuments to God, literature and songs about God, references to God in culture, history, etc etc.

In the absence of any reason to disbelieve in this entity, the PKBM is operating entirely rationally in accepting his existence. After all, he almost certainly has no more direct experience of Angela Merkel than he does of God, and no-one suggests that Angela Merkel is a convenient fiction. Not only that, but references to God are actually more common than references to Angela Merkel.

So the suggestion that atheism requires no effort, and is the default position, is without merit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

Whether a person describes themselves as atheist, agnostic (or any other 'ism') depends very much on the type of 'god' you're talking about.

Most if not all of us here are atheists about all the various prayer-answering gods of religion. We can say with confidence that such gods do not exist as described by these religions, they simply don't make any logical sense at all, and are clearly constructs of the human imagination, fictional characters in a rather bad movie.

On the other hand, the concept of god at a more sophisticated level, such as a god who created the universe (somehow) but doesn't intervene, is a different situation requiring a slightly different approach. The default position here would seem to be agnostic, as we really don't know whether there was a creative influence in the universe, and we may never know. But as Richard Dawkins points out we can say something about the proabability of such an entity, or as wicknight put it, perhaps better, about the probability of such an entity being anything remotely close to any of these so-called 'gods' that we can, and have, dreamed up.

So for me that would make me agnostic but leaning towards atheism on the issue of that god, as no matter how we imagine that there might have been a creator, as of now there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for any such being. We haven't even the vaguest idea what we'd be looking for, such an entity (if it did exist) would be orders of magnitude more complex and more powerful than us, to the point that any understanding of it could be forever beyond us. Like asking an insect to understand humans, or human knowledge. But for now, total lack of any discernible evidence makes me lean towards the atheist side on that one.

As a side note, when asked by people (in general) about my religious views, I will say 'atheist', as this is a term that most people can identify with, as roughly meaning non-religious. It's fine to get into the technicalities of the thing on a forum like this, where you're mostly dealing with people who will have at least some knowledge of the issue and be contrary argumentative feckers to boot and like discussing such things. Not everyone will fall into that category.

I just find the term atheist puts me firmly in the 'no religion' category without having to get into any kind of detailed explanation or argument. Even
if 'atheist' by itself is an imperfect term which may not precisely define my position, it does the job adequately in most cases.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Not really.

Begging the question implies that my argument that God is a human invention is not true. I think it has been established it is true. The question then remains even if God is a human invention, does that mean that it does not also exist, even by some cosmic fluke.

That's right - it's begging the question because you are assuming that God is only a human invention, which is definitely not proven.

That there is a good and coherent reason why humans would invent God, is not the same as proving that God is invented.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

So the suggestion that atheism requires no effort, and is the default position, is without merit.

I would be inclined to agree with you here up to a point. But what exactly is the 'default' position? I would suggest that neither agnosticism, atheism, religious belief, nor any other 'ism' for that matter can claim to be the default. We are all born 'nothing at all', where religion is concerned. To be anything, be it agnostic, catholic or atheist, requires that a god concept be introduced in the first place.

But I disagree with you that religion is the default. If most adults believe in one god or another, that is merely a cultural phenomenon, and says absolutely nothing of it's claim to truth. Early civilisations presumably came up with the concept of gods as they had such a poor understanding (in scientific terms) of how the world around them worked, and all that rain and lightning had to be coming from somewhere, and that big yellow sun in the sky looked mighty powerful and mysterious. This cultural meme of attributing god to that which we do not know or understand has carried on to this day, and that's the only reason that c.85% of people believe in a god.

That doesn't make religion the default position, it makes it a learned behaviour based on thousands of years of cultural evolution. Much like many of the other cultural rituals that have survived depsite their lack of apparent 'usefulness'. (and I'm not saying religion has no use at all, it must do to have survived, just that it's 'usefulness' in a darwinian perspective is not clear).

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

So the suggestion that atheism requires no effort, and is the default position, is without merit.

I'm not sure that was the suggestion (it certainly wasn't mine)

The suggestion was that if you don't accept God exists just because others believe this then there is nothing really left to support the idea that God exists. It is a theory given weight solely by the fact that a lot of other people believe it. The theory on its own has no merrit.

Of course it is well established that people will believe in religion given the option, just like people will believe in aliens and ghosts and astrology. The default position of humanity is to invent these concepts to help our brains process the world around us.

In fact that is the strongest reason to believe that God doesn't exist, the fact that we invented the concept in the first place.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

That's right - it's begging the question because you are assuming that God is only a human invention, which is definitely not proven.

That there is a good and coherent reason why humans would invent God, is not the same as proving that God is invented.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Gods are a human invention.

The question then becomes how likely is it that something humans imagined up some where in the long list of religions, gods and godesses, also by some cosmic fluke accurately describes an actual entity.

This was my point about Star Gate analogy.

StarGate assumes, for ease of viewing, that all aliens some how speak English. So the question, related to the one above, is how likely is it that aliens actually do speak English just like on Star Gate? It is important to realise in the question that the fact that aliens speak English on StarGate is not support for the idea that aliens speak English in real life.

Dades

Good points all.

Since we'll on definitions - my definition of a theist is pretty much in line with this one. Being an atheist then this is the type of god that I have no belief in.

Moving on from that, I guess I'm less of an adeist, as I'd have to agree that a deist type of god is so unfathomable that you simply have to be agnostic about it.

Scofflaw wrote:

In the absence of any reason to disbelieve in this entity, the PKBM is operating entirely rationally in accepting his existence. After all, he almost certainly has no more direct experience of Angela Merkel than he does of God, and no-one suggests that Angela Merkel is a convenient fiction. Not only that, but references to God are actually more common than references to Angela Merkel.

Ah yes but when the PKBM® looks at a picture of Angela Merkel she is always the same. She doesn't have a white beard in one picture, a big hammer in another and eight arms in the next.

Scofflaw wrote:

That there is a good and coherent reason why humans would invent God, is not the same as proving that God is invented.

It may not be proof, but you have to say it is evidence (no matter how small) that God does not exist. Which is more than the sum of all evidence showing he does exist.

I think I've lost the point of this thread. Oh yes - agnosticism. See atheist definition above.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

It may not be proof, but you have to say it is evidence (no matter how small) that God does not exist. Which is more than the sum of all evidence showing he does exist.

Well said.

I must say the demand for "proof" God doesn't exist does get rather tiresome, since I doubt it would be expect of any other invented human concept which people more easily accept isn't real. I mean would we really be tolerant of the belief that Star Wars actually happened unless we can prove it didn't (which I'm sure some out there do believe).

There is no proof God doesn't exist, in so much as there is no concrete proof of anything.

But there is a lot of logic and evidence to suggest that he doesn't, and as The Atheists states, this is a lot more than the sum of all evidence suggesting he does.

There is no proof aliens far far away and a long time ago didn't speak English. But there is a lot of logic, reason and evidence to suggest that they didn't. That would make me believe that they didn't. Likewise with God.

But if someone wishes to be open to any and all possibilities, despite evidence against the likelyhood of such a concept being real, feel free. And when you get to Alpha Centuri be sure to ask the aliens (in English) if they believe in God

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

StarGate assumes, for ease of viewing, that all aliens some how speak English. So the question, related to the one above, is how likely is it that aliens actually do speak English just like on Star Gate?

I beg to differ.

The question is whether or not the probability of aliens (on the assumption that they exist) speaking English is or is not non-zero.

If its not flat-out impossible (i.e. probability 0) then its possible.

Unlikely-to-a-vanishingly-small-probability, I'll grant you, but not impossible.

Thus, "how likely" is relevant only to the point of "it is not probability-0". After that, there is an implicit admission that we're playing the odds rather than stating an absolute certainty.

bonkey

The Atheist wrote:

It may not be proof, but you have to say it is evidence (no matter how small) that God does not exist. Which is more than the sum of all evidence showing he does exist.

No, its not evidence. Its interpretation of a situation so that it does not conflict with the assertion being tested.

By the same token, the existence of the universe does not conflict with the notion that God created it. By your standard, that should be evidence for God's existence. After all, the theory says God created it, and look - there it is. What more evidence could you need?

What's that you say? Correlation and causation are two entirely seperate things? Why, how correct you are.

If we apply that to the "God doesn't exist" evidence, however, guess what we find?

We're taking a correlation (the existence of God is correlated to the invention of deities by man) and implying causation (because one is invented, the other is too).

Implicitly, the same mistake!!!

So where does this leave us? It leaves us with either the conclusion that your "evidence" is no such thing, or - if it is - that the existence of the universe is "evidence" of the theists claim....evidence you claimed didn't exist.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

The question is whether or not the probability of aliens (on the assumption that they exist) speaking English is or is not non-zero.

If its not flat-out impossible (i.e. probability 0) then its possible.

Anything is possible bonkey, that is kinda missing the point.

It is impossible to know that the probability of anything is 0, outside of a maths book.

At some point, to function as humans, we decide that some things are "certain." I am certain that I'm not going to be hit by a pink dragon falling from the sky in the next 30 seconds. I have no way of knowing that the probabilty of that happening is actually 0, but am I looking up constantly worrying about it happening? No. Are you? I doubt it as well.

For an agnositic to say that we cannot know God doesn't exists and therefore there is a possibility he does exist is rather silly. We cannot know anything. But I doubt that agnostics apply this fact to all areas of their lives. If they did then an agnosistic could never be certain of anything ("Honey, will you get some milk from the shop?" "Umm, many, its impossible for me to say for sure, I might get hit by a dragon, can't be sure")

So the question, that I actually find more interesting than all this logic, is why apply it in such as strict manner to the question of God?

bonkey wrote:

Unlikely-to-a-vanishingly-small-probability, I'll grant you, but not impossible.

Unlikely-to-a-vanishingly-small-probability is enough for me to call myself an atheist

bonkey wrote:

After that, there is an implicit admission that we're playing the odds rather than stating an absolute certainty.

We are always playing with odds. That is how life is. Unless you can name one thing we actually know for absolute certainty.

What are the odds that Star Wars didn't actually happen exactly the way it is portrayed in George Lucas's movie? Would you refuse to state that it certainly didn't actually happen?

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

God is correlated to the invention of deities by man) and implying causation (because one is invented, the other is too).

But they are the same thing. That is the point.

If "something" exists out there it isn't the human invented concept known as a "god." It is something else, something that has yet to have a proper concept applied to it as an entity. We will call it "Bob", for both the entity and the human concept of the entity.

So the question is what is the likelyhood that "God" and "Bob", two different concepts, are exactly the same. Quite unlikely, given that we have no evidence that early humans who invented "God" were aware of "Bob", and quite a lot of evidence that they weren't. The concept of "God" serves a particular purpose to humans, just like english speaking aliens on StarGate do. This is evidence that the concept of "God" is not based on the entity "Bob", but is in fact based on particular human needs.

I am totally agnostic to the concept of "Bob", as I am to any undefined concept, since no one has yet defined what that is yet, and as I said "anything is possible".

I do on the other hand reject the concept of "God" as being solely a human invention. I also reject the odds as being so small as to be certain that the human invented concept of "God" would some how be very similar to the real "Bob", if "Bob" actually exists.

Or if they were identifical I would put that down to one of the greatest flukes in history, and have a quiet chuckle to myself. But I would still reject the original concept of "God" and substitute the real life concept of the entity "Bob" in its place, just as we substituted crocodile for the older concept of dragons.

There might be something out there, but what ever is out there we don't know about it. As such any previous invented concepts are largely invalid, and to quote the movies, any similarities to actual real life persons or entities is completely coincidental.

aidan24326

Bonkey you are just playing games with numbers. As Wicknight says above, it is impossible to say that anything has zero probability. In reality there is no such thing.

But, when we say something has a vanishingly-small-probability, we are saying in effect that it's probability may as well be zero, and really is as far as we are concerned. In ordinary life, if I said something had a probability of 1 in 10^50, would you say 'oh, well it's non-zero then, I'd better watch out'. Of course you wouldn't, you'd say to all intents and purposes it was impossible.

The probability of there being a god creator just like the one described in the holy book is probably much smaller than this. Pick a number. In other words it may be non-zero in a technical sense, but like wicknight says, it's small enough to be unworthy of placing any belief in.