Unknowability of divinity/"God"?

tech77

I'm agnostic.
I can't help seeing both atheistic and theistic viewpoints as arrogant.
Atheists in an intellectual sense (informed by no more than their limited (?) worldly evidence).
And Theists in a (less intellectual) sense.

There's just something hubristic for man (whether atheist or theist) to know it all (or anything) when it comes to matters outside of their own existence, is there not?

Sure you got evolution, well-founded and understood intellectually.
You got man's understanding of the principles of physics- The Big Bang, the cosmos etc.
So what?!
Likewise with the Theists' (less than intellectual and frequently ridiculous) efforts.

It's just that, by it's very nature, wouldn't the concepts of divinity/spirituality/"God" be outside the experience and comprehension of atheists and theists- necessarily unknowable to man (and probably forever so), not amenable to any sort of intellectual treatment or theistic treatment.

Does all this stuff just come down to humility.
Humility in the acceptance of unknowability.

(BTW, on the point of humility, i always wonder if atheists see themselves as more God-like themselves, following on from their absence of belief in God).

robindch

tech77 wrote: »

i always wonder if atheists see themselves as more God-like themselves, what with their belief in the absence of God.

Rehashing a post from a few months back:

There exists various degrees of atheism and agnosticism:

1. "Weak specific atheism" in which the holder believes that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist.
2. "Weak non-specific atheism" in which the holder believes that no deities of any kind exist.
3. "Strong specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that some specific deity, or group of deities, does not exist
4. "Strong non-specific atheism" in which the holder asserts that no deities exist at all.

In general, I'd imagine that most atheists here fall into category (1) and a few into (2) and (3) and there's nobody anywhere whom I know who falls into (4). Though there are plenty of religious people who think (entirely incorrectly and despite being reminded about it regularly) that all atheists place themselves in (4). Agnosticism has little meaning without specifying exactly what it is that one's being agnostic about, but once it's been defined, it's possible to apply a similar categorization to the atheist one above.

Most religious people people fall into category (3), when for example, christians assert that Allah is a figment of an overheated desert imagination.

There's nothing "god-like" about saying "I don't know" which is broadly the position of most atheists, or saying "that's nonsense" when presented, say, with an incoherent picture of some deity or other by a religious believer.

marco_polo

tech77 wrote: »

I'm agnostic.
I can't help seeing both atheistic and theistic viewpoints as arrogant.
Atheists in an intellectual sense (informed by no more than their limited (?) worldly evidence).
And Theists in a (less intellectual) sense.

True some folk are arrogant, some are not is that not just human nature? And in my experience if someone is arrogant it is usually not limited to a single topic such as religion.

There's just something hubristic for man (whether atheist or theist) to know it all (or anything) when it comes to matters outside of their own existence, is there not?

Sure you got evolution, well-founded and understood intellectually.
You got man's understanding of the principles of physics- The Big Bang, the cosmos etc.
So what?!
Likewise with the Theists' (less than intellectual and frequently ridiculous) efforts.

I had to look up hubristic (Who is arrogant now Mr Big Fancy words )

As I see it is that science is meerly exploring the nature of how things work, without trying to attach any grander meaning to it.

It's just that, by it's very nature, wouldn't the concepts of divinity/spirituality/"God" be outside the experience and comprehension of atheists and theists- necessarily unknowable to man (and probably forever so), not amenable to any sort of intellectual treatment or theistic treatment.

Does all this stuff just come down to humility.
Humility in the acceptance of unknowability.

What is the alternative, just give up? I think the pursuit of knowledge is a noble trait of humanity. Perhaps one day we will reach the limits of what we can know, but that is no reason not to try.

Many scientists would be the first to admit that it is unlikely that we will ever understand everything fully. In fact outside of some 'multiverse' branches of string theory that need a load of universises to be correct, most physicist could not care less about anything that may lie outside this universe and would agree that it is almost certainly unknowable.

(BTW, on the point of humility, i always wonder if atheists see themselves as more God-like themselves, what with their belief in the absence of God).

Bit of a generalisation there don't you think and I would say most untrue of the vast majority of atheists. Comments like that not very helpful when trying to starting a reasoned debate on what is otherwise a very interesting thread.

tech77

marco_polo wrote: »

Bit of a generalisation there don't you think and I would say most untrue of the vast majority of atheists. Comments like that not very helpful when trying to starting a reasoned debate on what is otherwise a very interesting thread.

No last thing i want to do is offend and stifle debate tbh.
What i mean by

i always wonder if atheists see themselves as more God-like themselves

is just that- i just wonder this.
It's not meant to be rhetorical/accusatory.

So what i mean by this is:
If "God"/divinity/higher power isn't really entertained by atheists, would it kinda follow that an atheistic mankind would logically see itself as the master of their own universe so to speak.
Basing this, albeit, of course, on limited evidence/experience of their universe.
OK so, if not exactly Gods, do atheists see themselves as the most God-like entities in their (limited) experience of the universe then.

All the above is just a curiosity btw, incidental to my main query though- the unknowability of "God" etc.

(And yeah of course the theistic viewpoint is arrogant as well for other reasons, but given the forum i'm just interested for the timebeing in possible atheistic arrogance in the context of this unknowability).

marco_polo

tech77 wrote: »

No last thing i want to do is offend and stifle debate tbh.
What i mean by is just that- i just wonder this.
It's not meant to be rhetorical/accusatory.

Fair enough, just checking

So what i mean by this is:
If "God"/divinity/higher power isn't really entertained by atheists, would it kinda follow that an atheistic mankind would logically see itself as the master of their own universe so to speak.
Basing this, albeit, of course, on limited evidence/experience of their universe.
OK so, if not exactly Gods, do atheists see themselves as the most God-like entities in their (limited) experience of the universe then.

All the above is just a curiosity btw, incidental to my main query though- the unknowability of "God" etc.

(And yeah of course the theistic viewpoint is arrogant as well for other reasons, but given the forum i'm just interested in possible atheistic arrogance above).

Well personally speaking I would just consider myself to be a member of one species on this planet doing my best not to get killed - And maybe span a few young ones along the way .

As for any God like tendancies, I do not personally even view Humans as the highest form of life, certainly we are the best evolved socially and intelligence wise, and have become the dominant species on the planet as a result (although insects and bacteria may like to argue that point) but lock me in a cave underground or put me thousands of meters under the sea on the ocean floor and I wouldn't be taking looking so well evolved then. It really depends on the criteria you use to evaluate, and this can be very different on different parts of the planet.

I find the belief that we were specially created by God in his image, and have dominion over the animal kingdom to be a much more arrogant viewpoint personally speaking.

Just my 2c, perhaps even a bordering on off topic . I will get back to the unknowability question tommorrow.

Zillah

I'm going to borrow an argument from Wicknight, as frankly I'm getting tired of making this same argument over and over again.

You don't believe there is a lion in your attic. Rightly so. This does point out however that to require 100% proof to commit to a belief is strict to the point of absurdity. You, wisely, dismiss the notion of there being a lion in your attic because its so highly unlikely. If someone asked you about said lion you wouldn't say "I am agnostic about the possibility of there being a lion in my attic as there could be forces beyond my ken secretly placing lions in my attic".

Similarly, I assume you don't go leveling such judgments at people who dismiss the existence of vampires and invisible pink unicorns. We're both arrogant enough to make that dismissal, why do you want me to give the question of God any special merit? I find it equally ridiculous.

Finally, your continuous use of ultimately meaningless, emotive words is quite taxing. Arrogant, hubristic, humility...these comments have no place in a rational discussion. One can be both arrogant and right, or humble and wrong.

axer

tech77 wrote: »

I'm agnostic.

I used to label myself as that too but you cannot label yourself as just agnostic since that does not make sense since it does not indicate what you actually believe.

Atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

I have found is that most athiests actually don't rule out the possibility of gods existing at all. They just take the logical approach that it is unlikely from what we know.

Dades

Why is it arrogant to simply believe something?

Especially something that arguably makes your existence meaningless from a theological pov...

limerick_woody

Atheism is the lack of belief in a supernatural being. How can that possibly be considered anything other than the default position?

If someone was to assert that there definitely is no God, then that person has gone too far and is not definitivily an Atheist - the atheist position is a lack of belief - not an untestable assertion.

Rev Hellfire

limerick_woody wrote: »

If someone was to assert that there definitely is no God, then that person has gone too far and is not definitivily an Atheist - the atheist position is a lack of belief - not an untestable assertion.

Surely as has been argued before atheistism is more than a simple 'belief', that would it at level pegging as the theists stance. An atheist states fact, if your's is a simple belief there is no god(s) then you imply you are open to the existence of god(s) which by default makes you an agnostic.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

An atheist states fact, if your's is a simple belief there is no god(s) then you imply you are open to the existence of god(s) which by default makes you an agnostic.

Being open to the existence of gods does not make you an agnostic.

If I may reprint axer's excellent quote from above:

Atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

It is impossible to know whether gods exist or not - given their slippery characteristics. But just because something is unfalsifiable doesn't mean people can't hold a belief as to whether it exists or not.

Rev Hellfire

I would have thought that Zillah point about been able to dismiss absurd notions to be applicable here, otherwise it is just fence sitting and playing with number, well I'm 99.9999999999999% certain there is no god.

Dades

I'm confused. Are you suggesting atheism is fence-sitting?

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

I'm confused. Are you suggesting atheism is fence-sitting?

I'm suggesting that, if your definition of atheism is a belief that their is no god, but one you can't state it with conviction.
Then in my view by that definition atheism is just agnosticism by another name, something I suspect (and I may be wrong here) the more *ahem* harden atheists here would disagree with.

I can't see what distinguishes it from agnosticism ?

Dades

Well given two options; to say I believe gods don't exist, or to say I know gods don't exist I'd have no choice but to go with the former.

My level of (dis)belief is what you might describe as 'strong', if that helps. Also, the term "practical atheist" has been bandied around here, and seems apt, as it reflects a real world belief, rather than a philosophical construct.

Zillah

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm suggesting that, if your definition of atheism is a belief that their is no god, but one you can't state it with conviction.
Then in my view by that definition atheism is just agnosticism by another name, something I suspect (and I may be wrong here) the more *ahem* harden atheists here would disagree with.

I can't see what distinguishes it from agnosticism ?

Hello Mr Atheist, do you believe in God?
No.

Hello Mr Agnostic, do you believe in God?
I'm not sure.

20goto10

I think being agnostic is an awful state of mind to be in. An agnostic to me is someone who knows religion and God is absurd but just can't bring themselves to let go fully of all the rubbish which has polluted their minds by being brought up a Christian. Its akin to any other post traumatic stress syndrome.

brianthebard

Dades wrote: »

Why is it arrogant to simply believe something?

Especially something that arguably makes your existence meaningless from a theological pov...

I think the op is saying its arrogant for someone to close their mind to a particular viewpoint....A lot of atheists say they would believe if something concrete was put in front of them, but most of the time they are too busy ridiculing those with faith to actually be looking for evidence. I personally don't care what an individual believes, and in fact find faith an interesting and intriguing concept, but I find many many atheists argumentative and unnecessarily rude for want of a better phrase.

Rev Hellfire

Zillah wrote: »

Hello Mr Atheist, do you believe in God?
No.

Hello Mr Agnostic, do you believe in God?
I'm not sure.

So to turn your question around slightly to reflect my issue with Dades definition (ie. is atheism a statement of fact as opposed to belief) would this be an accurate representation:

Hello Mr Atheist, do gods exist?
No gods do not exist.

Hello Mr Agnostic, do you believe in God?
I'm not sure.

brianthebard

20goto10 wrote: »

I think being agnostic is an awful state of mind to be in. An agnostic to me is someone who knows religion and God is absurd but just can't bring themselves to let go fully of all the rubbish which has polluted their minds by being brought up a Christian. Its akin to any other post traumatic stress syndrome.

Now that seems like distilled arrogance to me.

pH

brianthebard wrote: »

A lot of atheists say they would believe if something concrete was put in front of them, but most of the time they are too busy ridiculing those with faith to actually be looking for evidence.

That statement is just plain silly. It (or similar) claims have been made quite a few times here before. I'm beginning to think that the average God botherer takes over an hour to prepare a simple post here on boards.

I'm quite capable of reading and responding to threads in under 15 minutes a day, that leaves 23 3/4 hours left to do other things (including 'look for evidence' if I wanted to).

I know that some people believe in really dumb things, but do you really believe that 'a lot' of atheists spend 'most of the time' 'ridiculing those with faith'?, or are you lying?

brianthebard

I didn't realise you were going to take it so literally. I'm agnostic btw. And I'm not lying, but I meant in terms of debate on religion and faith, they often spend more time ridiculing than listening.

Zillah

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

So to turn your question around slightly to reflect my issue with Dades definition (ie. is atheism a statement of fact as opposed to belief) would this be an accurate representation:

Hello Mr Atheist, do gods exist?
No gods do not exist.

Hello Mr Agnostic, do you believe in God?
I'm not sure.

Atheism is a matter of belief. We cannot always justify what we believe. I feel Atheism is a very rational position but I cannot state, in a strict sense, that God does not exist.

Sometimes I might say "No gods do not exist" but mostly I'm just rounding up to 100% from 99.99% for the sake of simplicity.

Hello Mr Atheist, do you believe in God?
No.

Can you prove God does not exist?
No.

Does that make your answer to the first question irrational?
No.

20goto10

brianthebard wrote: »

Now that seems like distilled arrogance to me.

And this goes back to the point where religious people think they deserve some kind of respect because they are a member of the longest running cult in history. I've heard Catholics ridicule mormons and scientologists. When I ask them how are they any different I get the usual "aw shut up you arrogant atheist" argument. The only difference, and this is fact rather than opinion, is that their cult has been running longer and is better funded.

Zillah

Stating that someone else is arrogant is not, contrary to popular opinion, a sound counter to their position. You may as well call them a poo-head for all the good it does for a rational discussion.

brianthebard

20goto10 wrote: »

And this goes back to the point where religious people think they deserve some kind of respect because they are a member of the longest running cult in history. I've heard Catholics ridicule mormons and scientologists. When I ask them how are they any different I get the usual "aw shut up you arrogant atheist" argument. The only difference, and this is fact rather than opinion, is that their cult has been running longer and is better funded.

I noticed you connected religious with Catholicism, despite the fact its not actually the oldest faith. Methinks you are confused about a lot of terminology and the nature of your disgust is misdirected, from the Catholic church to people of faith in general. In any case I don't see how it "goes back to the point", if you had a point to begin with. And I don't see why you believe religious people shouldn't be shown respect, surely its a basic tenet of day to day life?

all the stars

Ages ago i would have jumped into a discussion about stuff like this, but i've always wondered why people feel the need to really go into their religious (or lack of) beliefs so aggressively with people of a differant scope/religion/ whatever..

I mean, realitstically, no-one will be changing their own personal views (read any of the debates in the christian threads) so whats the gain of trying to discuss it?

I mean, why do people need to validate their beliefs, or throw them about so much.
Yes i have gotten involved in the mindless debates before- however, i dont in general 'real' life feel the need to go into it... They are my beliefs/or partial lack of.... and i dont need anybody poking fun at them. ... coz thats what generally happens.

I mean, nobody knows one way or the other with 100% certainty what or which religion is the right one, ... heck, even a priest i know still has a few things he cant awnser 100%... same with the agnostics or athiests...

There is nothing 100% certain .

Dades

brianthebard wrote: »

A lot of atheists say they would believe if something concrete was put in front of them, but most of the time they are too busy ridiculing those with faith to actually be looking for evidence.

That first part of that statement may be correct, but the second part is kind of nonsensical. Countless threads on boards and elsewhere have discussed the "evidence" offered by religion and it's proponents, and every sincere non-believer has simply looked at the same evidence as believers and come to a different conclusion.

brianthebard wrote: »

I find many many atheists argumentative and unnecessarily rude for want of a better phrase.

Yes, religion can take stick here (this is a heathen internet forum), but frankly not everyone subscribes to the idea that religion is some sort of sacred cow that should be free from the same scrutiny that every other facet of life is subject to. Religion affects us all.

Yes, many atheists argumentative and unnecessarily rude. But if you visit the Motors forum you'll find many car enthusiasts are argumentative and unnecessarily rude. And the golf forum. And the photography forum... and so on. This is the internet. Welcome to it. If you see a post where you adjudge someone to be rude - report it.

Zillah

all the stars wrote: »

There is nothing 100% certain .

The fact that nothing is 100% doesn't mean that everything is equal.

If you were gambling, and one choice had a 1% chance and the other had 99%, would you shrug and go on about how nothing in life is 100%?

To me that's faith versus atheism.

20goto10

brianthebard wrote: »

I noticed you connected religious with Catholicism, despite the fact its not actually the oldest faith. Methinks you are confused about a lot of terminology and the nature of your disgust is misdirected, from the Catholic church to people of faith in general.

I said I have heard catholics ridicule mormons and scientoligists because the people doing the ridiculing were catholic.

brianthebard wrote: »

And I don't see why you believe religious people shouldn't be shown respect, surely its a basic tenet of day to day life?

I will respect people in day to day life so long as they don't talk about religion. I'm not saying they don't have a right to speak, I'm saying they don't have a right to speak without being confronted or ridiculed.

brianthebard

20goto10 wrote: »

I said I have heard catholics ridicule mormons and scientoligists because the people doing the ridiculing were catholic.

What is the longest running cult you were referring to so?

I will respect people in day to day life so long as they don't talk about religion. I'm not saying they don't have a right to speak, I'm saying they don't have a right to speak without being confronted or ridiculed.

That's not really respect then is it, its censorship.