Agnosticism

[Daemon Sophic]

And since, presumably, we are "finite beings" is there a distinction to be made between no truth and truth we cannot know?

We are definitely finite beings, even if you think of us as "star-stuff".
Anyways. Yes as Oberon has stated......However, I would like to phrase things differently, as your question and Oberon's answer are still cloudy to me. :sorry1:

Yes there is a distinction. Annnd.....neither one encapsulates what agnosticism is. :no:
- "No truth" is an absolute affirmative statement that there distinctly is no truth. This would be the atheist viewpoint.
- "Truth we cannot know" is again, absolutly affirmative; but this time in the opposite direction. It says distinctly that there is truth, but also says we are too small to comprehend that truth. This is a deist point of view.

---going further---​

- "Truth we do know" - This is the viewpoint of almost all organized religions; saying not only do we know that there is truth, but we also know exactly what the truth is, and we have it right here in this book/scroll. reach:
- "We don't, and probably cannot ever know if there is truth. Furthermore, even if there is truth, then likely we won't be able to comprehend it." - This is agnosticism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the falling tree format: We are a group of people from a desert tribe who have never seen trees before. We are currently standing a mile off from the edge of a massive 10,000 square mile forest.
Atheist - "No trees have ever fallen in that forest. Period."
Deist - "One or more trees have fallen in the forest and made crunchy/crashing sounds as they fell.....or maybe wooshing/thumping sounds.....or maybe they cried out in pain as they fell....or....."
Pantheist - "Lots of trees are falling all the time, making all sorts of sounds."
Monotheist - "Only one tree ever fell. It was a 300 foot tall Sumac with 147 branches and 874,047 orange leaves. It was right over there (pointing), but you cannot see it anymore because is fell down. Duh! As it fell, its thunderous crash sounded like millions of gold and silver bells, and could be heard by millions of people around the world. It fell in a north by northwesterly direction at exactly 9:22 PM on April 12th roughly 6000 years ago."
At this point another monotheist cries out "You fool! :slap: it had 129 branches!" ...and another holy war breaks out.
Agnostic - Nice view. I suppose if we went into the forest we might find out more information.

 

[Willamena]

Using the falling tree format: We are a group of people from a desert tribe who have never seen trees before. We are currently standing a mile off from the edge of a massive 10,000 square mile forest.
Atheist - "No trees have ever fallen in that forest. Period."
Deist - "One or more trees have fallen in the forest and made crunchy/crashing sounds as they fell.....or maybe wooshing/thumping sounds.....or maybe they cried out in pain as they fell....or....."
Pantheist - "Lots of trees are falling all the time, making all sorts of sounds."
Monotheist - "Only one tree ever fell. It was a 300 foot tall Sumac with 147 branches and 874,047 orange leaves. It was right over there (pointing), but you cannot see it anymore because is fell down. Duh! As it fell, its thunderous crash sounded like millions of gold and silver bells, and could be heard by millions of people around the world. It fell in a north by northwesterly direction at exactly 9:22 PM on April 12th roughly 6000 years ago."
At this point another monotheist cries out "You fool! :slap: it had 129 branches!" ...and another holy war breaks out.
Agnostic - Nice view. I suppose if we went into the forest we might find out more information.

So... they are all liars who make up stories, except the agnostic?

Frubals for the story.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

So... they are all liars who make up stories, except the agnostic?

Frubals for the story.

Thanks for the frubals. :namaste

I usually don't call them "liars" per say.
Most of them truly believe their fantasies. They are desperate to find/give meaning. To define that which cannot be defined.

Liars, self-deluded, misled, ...whatever.

I however, am patient enough to wait till after I'm dead to find out (perhaps) at least a part of the truth.
Tell ya what. After I get that piece of information, I'll see what I can do to let you know what I found out.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I usually don't call them "liars" per say.
Most of them truly believe their fantasies. They are desperate to find/give meaning. To define that which cannot be defined.

No doubt. As an atheist, I truly believe that I don't believe in the existence of god. I know, I just reek of desperation.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

No doubt. As an atheist, I truly believe that I don't believe in the existence of god. I know, I just reek of desperation.

Semantics.
Do you believe that there is definitely no god?
If yes. Then you are an atheist.
If no......then perhaps you are an agnostic.

Keep in mind, as I've said said many times. I'm agnostic. From what I can see, the atheists are probably right. But the universe isn't over yet.
We're still far from the forest, but I haven't heard a tree fall during the short while we've been standing here.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Semantics.
Do you believe that there is definitely no god?
If yes. Then you are an atheist.
If no......then perhaps you are an agnostic.

Keep in mind, as I've said said many times. I'm agnostic. From what I can see, the atheists are probably right. But the universe isn't over yet.
We're still far from the forest, but I haven't heard a tree fall during the short while we've been standing here.

As I've said many times, I'm agnostic, and an atheist. From what I can see, they're both rational positions, and you haven't shown that the what is typically known as a "strong atheist" is the only type of atheism. But, I agree, it's semantics, and what's important is what one's actual position is. I neither believe in the existence of gods, nor do I claim to know.

 

[Oberon]

In the answer to the question, it also doesn't, though. It "does" only because we have firmly fixed in place a fantasy world beyond what we know to be true.

The question only has meaning if a sound is "something heard." In that case, an experiencer is necessary for the sound to be a sound. The same thing is true for anything in what we think of as reality. However, once one admits that reality can exist independent of the observer/experiencer (e.g. as air disturbances known as sound waves created by a falling tree) than reality is no longer completely subjective.

If there is absolute truth, but we can't know it, just like we can't hear the falling tree, this doesn't mean it isn't "out there," just like the sound waves created by the falling tree.

The question comes down to whether or not you believe that reality can exist apart from any experiencer/observer. I do.

 

[Willamena]

However, once one admits that reality can exist independent of the observer/experiencer

...then one has effectively removed the observer from reality, creating an imagined divide that separates them. The observer could be removed from the picture of "reality" without changing the image at all.

If there is absolute truth, but we can't know it, just like we can't hear the falling tree, this doesn't mean it isn't "out there," just like the sound waves created by the falling tree.

The question comes down to whether or not you believe that reality can exist apart from any experiencer/observer. I do.

Truth isn't "out there" in the context that there is no "out there" different from an "in here". "In here" is "out there" (no separation). Reality is as much the observer as it is everything else.

That's what I believe.

 

[Oberon]

...then one has effectively removed the observer from reality, creating an imagined divide that separates them.

More or less, yes. The observer is part of reality, but the question is whether or not reality exists only by virtue of the observer. It doesn't. Just because I am not there to perceive a tree falling in the forest doesn't mean it isn't falling. Reality isn't dependent upon an observer.

The observer could be removed from the picture of "reality" without changing the image at all.

No. The observers, as participants in reality, change what goes on. The question, however, is were they removed, would reality cease to exist? The answer is no.

Truth isn't "out there" in the context that there is no "out there" different from an "in here". "In here" is "out there" (no separation). Reality is as much the observer as it is everything else.

Yes, the observer is part of reality. But again, the question is whether or not reality can and does exist apart from the observer. I can see rocks and trees and so forth. But if I didn't, and even if no one did, that wouldn't affect their existence. Likewise with absolute truth. The supposition that nobody can know absolute truth doesn't equate with the supposition that it doesn't exist. It's a bit like saying that just because nobody will ever be able to observe a particular planet at the edges of our universe means it doesn't exist. It exists whether or not anyone will or even can observe it.

 

[zenzero]

Friend dogsgod,

Agnosticism
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. wiki

An agnostic is not a fence sitter. The agnostic cannot know and neither can you.

Got it?

Yes, got that long back!
Its true.
Those who find IT, only does so by losing themselves and so they can never claim about knowing IT.
TRUE!
understood?

Love & rgds

 

[dogsgod]

...for all the things which distinguish them. Atheism is a positive epistemic stance: I believe no gods exist (also occasionally "I believe religions are all wrong"). Theism is likewise a positive epistemic stance: I believe god or gods exist. Agnosticism is a negative epistemic stance: I don't know whether god or gods exist.

To equate the two is to say there is no difference between the statments "I believe there is no god" and "I don't know if there is a god or not." Unfortunately for you, there is a substantial difference between these two stances.

I don't know what it means when you say God doesn't exist because I have no idea how you define God. In your case I don't know what it is that doesn't exist. I'm an atheist because I don't share in the beliefs of the theist. I don't fantasize about what gods are, I don't define gods, that is for the preoccupation of the theist to get involved in and as far as I'm concerned it's a waste of time, but to each their own. As an agnostic I can't know anything about the supernatural as long as it's described in terms that are not falsifiable, and you can't know either.

 

[LarryK32]

Technically, there is no way to know. Therefore we are ALL agnostic in some form or another. I know I believe but I know I can‘t know. If I knew I‘d prove it like other people who claim they "know". There is no way to know.