Agnostisism a product of anti-atheism?

[jrpurdon]

(05-20-2012 03:09 AM)Hypernova Wrote:  To clarify, is this what you are doing? Asserting that no gods exist? I am yet to meet an atheist who has asserted that claim so maybe you'll be the first.

What does it mean to assert that no gods exist? I suppose I might be doing it depending on the definition.

Quote:Well, if you are asserting that no gods exist to a level of absolute certainty, I would say you had an internally inconsistent worldview.

Absolute certainty is a little redundant, wouldn't you say? Can someone be a little certain? Kind of certain? Certainty means without doubt. I have no doubt about the non-existence of gods. But true knowledge of this, I would say, is impossible. I'm not sure how this is inconsistent. Certainty describes my mental state. Knowledge depends on truth, which exists independent from my mental state.

Quote:Do you know that no gods exist?

When you step out of bed in the morning, do you know the floor will be there? I never check, so aren't I just taking it on faith that my past experiences are reliable enough? And yet, I never for a second doubt the floor being there. It's certain in my mind that it will be.

[Hypernova]

(05-20-2012 09:34 AM)jrpurdon Wrote:  What does it mean to assert that no gods exist? I suppose I might be doing it depending on the definition.

Its claiming to know something about reality.

Quote:Absolute certainty is a little redundant, wouldn't you say? Can someone be a little certain? Kind of certain? Certainty means without doubt.

I would say that, in every day terms, certainty refers to a level of evidence one finds compelling.

Quote:I have no doubt about the non-existence of gods.

Does this mean you know it to be true? If so, how?

Quote:But true knowledge of this, I would say, is impossible. I'm not sure how this is inconsistent.

Like I said, I only find it inconsistent if you are asserting absolute certainty.

Quote:Certainty describes my mental state. Knowledge depends on truth, which exists independent from my mental state.

Truth is independent of subjective experience, knowledge, however, is not. I would argue certainty is an element in claiming knowledge.

Quote:When you step out of bed in the morning, do you know the floor will be there? I never check, so aren't I just taking it on faith that my past experiences are reliable enough? And yet, I never for a second doubt the floor being there. It's certain in my mind that it will be.

The only way i can see the above as an answer to my question is to view your claim to knowledge that the floor exists is equivalent to knowledgeable that no gods exist, but I'm not sure that's what you are doing here.

To answer your question, I do not know, to a level of absolute certainty, that the floor exists. However I find the weight of evidence which supports that idea compelling. So as far as one can know anything given the limitations of subjectivity, i know the floor exists. So, back to the question.

Given what we have discussed above, do you know that no gods exist?

---

Anyway this is all a red herring. Even if you do claim to know that no gods exist, is this foundational to your atheism? Even if you didn't know, you'd still be an atheist right?

[jrpurdon]

(05-28-2012 12:06 AM)Hypernova Wrote:  I would argue certainty is an element in claiming knowledge.

I agree. They are different but related. A person can't (logically) simultaneously know something and doubt it.

Quote:To answer your question, I do not know, to a level of absolute certainty, that the floor exists. However I find the weight of evidence which supports that idea compelling. So as far as one can know anything given the limitations of subjectivity, i know the floor exists. So, back to the question.

It seems as though you've invented a phrase "absolute certainty" to mean knowledge. I don't have "absolute certainty" of anything, much like you describe with the floor still being there every morning. But gods not existing, to me, is like the floor existing. I'm as sure of it as anything. My reasons?

1) At a subjective, personal level, I have tried to find gods the ways that religion claims they can be found (prayer, meditation). I have come up short.

2) There are many compelling logical arguments against specific definitions or instantiations of gods as claimed by various religions.

3) We can see the construction and evolution of religion as a secular institution, not much different than politics or economics.

4) It seems extremely unlikely that there would happen to be an actual thing similar to what amounts to a creature of folklore and superstition. God happening to exist would be like vampires and goblins happening to exist. They are works of fiction, and I don't expect fiction to be coincidentally true.

[Hypernova]

(05-31-2012 05:55 AM)jrpurdon Wrote:  It seems as though you've invented a phrase "absolute certainty" to mean knowledge. I don't have "absolute certainty" of anything, much like you describe with the floor still being there every morning.

Well no, I was clarifying what I mean about knowledge, not equating absolute certainty to knowledge. As you state above I thought I explained that with the floor example, i.e. knowledge within the limits of subjectivity.

Quote:But gods not existing, to me, is like the floor existing. I'm as sure of it as anything. My reasons?

Cool.

Quote:1) At a subjective, personal level, I have tried to find gods the ways that religion claims they can be found (prayer, meditation). I have come up short.

That would only prove those specific claims wrong. It doesn't tell you anything else about the universe. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In reality its just barely circumstantial. You cant make a positive claim about the universe i.e. the floor exists, buy evoking a negative. As an example, there is no positive evidence for the existence of extra terrestrial life. Thus, do you know no such life exists?

Quote:2) There are many compelling logical arguments against specific definitions or instantiations of gods as claimed by various religions.

I agree, however there are many god concepts which are not logically inconsistent.

Quote:3) We can see the construction and evolution of religion as a secular institution, not much different than politics or economics.

What does the development of the religious institution have to do with the existence of gods? Again, religions fundamentally 'human' nature does not tell you anything else about the universe.

Quote:4) It seems extremely unlikely that there would happen to be an actual thing similar to what amounts to a creature of folklore and superstition. God happening to exist would be like vampires and goblins happening to exist. They are works of fiction, and I don't expect fiction to be coincidentally true.

Well, first of all folklore and superstition are two different things. Much folklore is based on a nucleus of truth, such as city foundation myths ect. There are some non mythological basis behind the notions of vampires and goblins. Superstition, on the other hand, is essentially injecting meaning into random events. Believing vampires exist is not necessarily superstitious.

Second of all, is every single god concept you could possibly think of akin to folklore? What of the diest's god, the prime mover, the ultimate force behind the design of the universe? Is this god mythological in a similar way? What about the simulation theory; that the universe is a gigantic quantum computer, and thus a simulation? In this example god would be a computer programmer. Does this example count?

So to sum up, we started with your statement that you know no gods exist to a level of certainty comparable to knowing the floor exists i.e. as much as anyone can know anything. But the reasons you have provided are nothing even close to those which support the floor existing. On the one hand you have a predictive model of the floor's existence which you not only test every day, but has proved 100% reliable (not counting dreams). On the other hand you have what equates to a bit of circumstantial evidence; the failure of some religious claims, the developmental history of religion, the logical inconsistency of some god concepts and the apparently mythological nature of others. Those two claims to certainty don't even seem to be in the same ballpark.


p.s. to the original point I was making regarding Atheism simply being a lack of belief (or acceptance) in theist concepts. Your belief that no gods exist, whether justified or not, is contingent upon your atheism, not the other way around.

[kevlar]

Whata load of crap..................but funny as.

[rocketboy9000]

Quote:Second of all, is every single god concept you could possibly think of akin to folklore? What of the diest's god, the prime mover, the ultimate force behind the design of the universe? Is this god mythological in a similar way?

They are less certain to not exist, but at the same time, they are less god-like. A prime mover, with no personality and no ability to interfere; what is the point of belief in such a being? It only serves to help you avoid considering an infinite backward span of existence!
As for the computer programmer example, this would require not only a quantum computer, but a super-Turing computer, since even a quantum computer cannot solve the n-body problem for n>2 with absolute precision. Having then such a computer, it could solve the entire history of the universe.
But the problem of evil applies to such a programmer! If he is benevolent, and has infinite computing power, he can solve all instances of evil! But he has not. Therefore if the universe is a computer program, then the programmer either does not care, or is malevolent. Again, there is no point in believing or praying to such a being!

These "gods" are not godly.