Agnostic: Get off the fence?

[Yes Man]

Rubbish. You hold no belief in preternatural agency.

That's what I said. :sarcastic

 

[Imagist]

They already have. To pretend that there is a 3rd option is not ignosticism - it's adolescent posturing.

This is tantamount to saying that anyone who doesn't know everything is posturing adolescently. For every question there is the possibility of not knowing the answer, so "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer to the question. Is honesty adolescent posturing?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is tantamount to saying that anyone who doesn't know everything is posturing adolescently.

Not in the least.

For every question there is the possibility of not knowing the answer, so "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer to the question.

Of course. And, of course, that fact is entirely irrelevant. One either holds a belief (A) or one does not (NOT-A). There is no third option.

 

[doppelganger]

Not in the least.
Of course. And, of course, that fact is entirely irrelevant. One either holds a belief (A) or one does not (NOT-A). There is no third option.

Of course there's a third option. And a fourth.



Both A and NOT-A
Neither A nor NOT-A

"Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds." - William James

Some decisions about a belief are determined by what James calls the passional nature. Being aware that the passional nature must make those decisions, and the intellectual product of that passional decision must be regarded as valid, is to understand the hard limits of Aristotelian metaphysics. It's also to open the doorway to scientific progress, because it breaks open a multi-valued logic that properly understands ontological propositions in terms of probability and uncertainty (and the corresponding psychological states that so fascinated James).

You know this of course, because you've read Korzybski's Science and Sanity, which you used to quote in your sig line.

General semantics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Willamena]

Stupid question time: What is the difference between "not holding" (symbolized in NOT-A) and holding NOT-A?

 

[Sententia]

Say What? I don't actually see a fence that I'm on. Make no mistake I AM
agnostic :yes: . I AM NOT undecided :no: like so many people's
interpretation of the term agnostic. To put that in perspective:

1+1=?
A. 2
B. 2.0
C. Not 3

Every one of those answers is correct and equally so.

"But what about C, it's not equal"

Yes it is, it's just less specific. Agnosticism, for me, is my choice, my answer.
Don't tell me to get off the fence and choose, I'm already on the lawn. Now
the only thing left to fight about is whose grass is greener.

Religulous... By Bill Maher... Great flick and welcome to the church of I don't know... BTW some would argue your a weak atheist as well... I dont care what you call yourself personally.

 

[Imagist]

Not in the least.
Of course. And, of course, that fact is entirely irrelevant. One either holds a belief (A) or one does not (NOT-A). There is no third option.

I see now what you are saying, but you are not being clear. "Not-A" as you call it could mean two things. It could mean "A is not true" or it could mean "I do not believe A (because I do not know whether or not it is true)". If my understanding is correct, you mean the latter.

This being the case, you are correct that there is no third option; you either believe in the existence of a god or you do not. However, there are options within those options. If you believe in a god, you could be Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, etc. If you don't believe in a god, you could either not know whether a god exists (agnosticism), or you could believe that no god exists (atheism). Agnosticism is not "adolescent posturing" or "pretending there's a third option" any more than Judaism is; both are subdivisions within their respective boolean options.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Of course there's a third option. And a fourth.

Both A and NOT-A
Neither A nor NOT-A

Have fun with that ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One either holds a belief (A) or one does not (NOT-A). There is no third option.

I see now what you are saying, but you are not being clear. "Not-A" as you call it could mean two things. It could mean "A is not true" or it could mean "I do not believe A (because I do not know whether or not it is true)".

Or a could mean "hold (adhere to) a belief in God."

If you do not hold such a belief, you do not hold such a belief. Why that might be the case is a different subject.

 

[doppelganger]

Have fun with that ...

I am, thanks. Understanding multi-valued logic is a nice way to avoid a whole range of common mental traps, BTW. :yes:

Though I prefer semiotics to Korzybski's "General Semantics", both of them are very useful ways of thinking creatively and critically.

 

[Imagist]

Or a could mean "hold (adhere to) a belief in God."

If you do not hold such a belief, you do not hold such a belief. Why that might be the case is a different subject.

That why is the difference between atheism and the agnosticism you characterized as "adolescent posturing".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That why is the difference between atheism and the agnosticism you characterized as "adolescent posturing".

I haven't a clue what you think that sentence might mean ...

 

[Imagist]

I haven't a clue what you think that sentence might mean ...

My apologies, going back and reading that myself I was confused. I worded that quite poorly. In explanation:

If you do not hold such a belief, you do not hold such a belief. Why that might be the case is a different subject.

That why is the difference between atheism and the agnosticism you characterized as "adolescent posturing"

In other words, the why, or the reason for the lack of belief is important: it's not adolescent posturing.

An atheist (like myself) does not believe in the existence of a god. The reason is that the atheist believes that there is sufficient information to say that there is not a god (either absolutely or probablistically).

An agnostic ALSO does not believe in the existence of a god. The reason is that the agnostic believes that there is insufficient information to make any statement about the existence (or nonexistence) of a god.

This distinction in reasoning between agnostics and atheists is significant, and not adolescent posturing.

 

[Naturalist_Atheist]

Atheism and theism deal with BELIEF. Agnosticism sidesteps the issue of belief and tries to deal with KNOWLEDGE. You either hold a beleif in a god or you do not. What you claim to know is irrelevant.

I agree. The OP is not on the fence. There is no fence. He simply refuses to answer the simple question of where do you stand? Don't be afraid little agnostics... The water's fine.

 

[MoonWater]

Atheism and theism deal with BELIEF. Agnosticism sidesteps the issue of belief and tries to deal with KNOWLEDGE. You either hold a beleif in a god or you do not. What you claim to know is irrelevant.

I agree. The OP is not on the fence. There is no fence. He simply refuses to answer the simple question of where do you stand? Don't be afraid little agnostics... The water's fine.

The reason we don't answer is because there is no way for us to "know" which answer is "right". Heck we can't even determine which is "more likely". Why claim "knowledge" when we don't have any "knowledge" to begin with nor any means of obtaining that knowledge?

 

[Naturalist_Atheist]

The reason we don't answer is because there is no way for us to "know" which answer is "right". Heck we can't even determine which is "more likely". Why claim "knowledge" when we don't have any "knowledge" to begin with nor any means of obtaining that knowledge?

Like I said. Atheism/theism deal with BELIEF. Not KNOWLEDGE. What you claim to know or not know is irrelevant. It's all about belief. In the absence of knowledge we are left with belief.

 

[doppelganger]

In the absence of knowledge we are left with belief.

Or a sound epistemology that recognizes induction as the sole ground for ontology.

Some questions cease to have meaning by virtue of the mere act of asking them.

 

[Naturalist_Atheist]

Listen college boy... Why do you have to make me run to Dictionary.com every other word? Damn philosophy buffs....

Actually, I still can understand you even after I ran a search. Damn.. I need to get back in school.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Like I said. Atheism/theism deal with BELIEF. Not KNOWLEDGE.

Listen college boy... Why do you have to make me run to Dictionary.com every other word? Damn philosophy buffs....

It's hard to know what to say about someone who finds it necessary to run to a dictionary to look up the word 'ontology' after deigning to instruct us about "BELIEF" and "KNOWLEDGE." :yes:

 

[MoonWater]

Like I said. Atheism/theism deal with BELIEF. Not KNOWLEDGE. What you claim to know or not know is irrelevant. It's all about belief. In the absence of knowledge we are left with belief.

I was speaking in particular about your last sentence telling agnostics that "the water is fine." and explaining why we don't "jump in". I understand the distinction between knowledge and belief. It is because of this distinction that I am able to call myself both a theist and an agnostic without contradicting myself. You seem to be under the impression that because there is a distinction between the two we can only have either one or the other and the way you called us "little agnostics" implies that you think we are too "frightened" and "childish" to "jump in" the "water". But there is no water or shore or fence on a field, it's just everyone with their own opinion derived from their own experiences.