Where should the "I don't know" go?

[1213]

Where should the "I don't know" go?

I don't know. Perhaps it is best to stay where you are now and wait others to come to you.

... so which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

Luckily we are not in a situation with no information. But, I think people don't know anything anyway. People only believe they know.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The reason that the "God exists" side has more merit than you give it, is because it so common around the world and down through time for people to intuit some sort of Divine. Not everyone. But most.

Why wouldn't the starting point be where we have common ground? If it's a common belief for good reasons, then we should be able to get from "questions like "is this thing coherent?" and "is it reasonable to take this thing seriously?" to questions like "does the thing exist?" very quickly.

Intuition is certainly fallible. But like all our instincts, it has evolved because it is adaptive. And because it is adaptive, I would say that given lack of any conclusive evidence one way or another, going with our intuition makes sense (so long as one remembers in the back of one's mind that we may be wrong).

So until we turn on the basement light, we have to entertain the possibility that someone's feeling of dread at the top of the basement stairs is because there's really a monster down there?

 

[SalixIncendium]

The question of whether something is true or real often gets framed by the believers in the thing... e.g. monotheists set the question as "does God exist?"

In a situation with no evidence either way, this framing is important because it lends itself to the balance fallacy: when the answer to the question "does God exist?" is "I don't know," there's a (fallacious) implication that both sides have equal merit.

... but here's the thing: with no evidence either way, every question can be answered with "I don't know":

- is the existence of God worth investigating? I don't know.
- is God possible? I don't know.
- is there there the slightest reason to think God might not be impossible? I don't know.

... so which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

None of them.

A reasonable starting point when we have no information would be:

- what is God?

 

[ppp]

So there you have it.

That communicates nothing to me.

Firstly, I am a gal in the bar, and secondly, I am not passionate about religion, I think it is boring. I am passionate about cats and other animals, anything to do with nature and beautiful scenery.

[shrug] You have gone on and on about your notions on the subject for years and years on this forum alone. Getting hung up on the word "passionate" is ignoring the point.

Yes, admittedly I have strong opinions on the subject of God and religion, and I think it is important to know about God and religion.
No, I do not expect anyone to take me seriously, not unless they have a reason to do so.

Which is the same reason that I do not take Homer seriously. Nor Bahá'u'lláh. Nor Paul. Nor Sun Myung Moon.

 

[an anarchist]

First, try not to smear what people say together as though we are not individuals. It's a goober move.

Memes can be callous

 

[ppp]

Memes can be callous

Taking responsibility for your actions and choices is an important aspect of integrity. Blaming external factors—like "memes" or circumstances—can be a way to avoid accountability, and it might prevent personal growth or deeper reflection on why certain decisions were made.

It's easier to place blame on tools, systems, or other inanimate things because it distances us from the consequences of our own decisions. But owning your actions, even when things go wrong, shows strength and helps build trust, both with yourself and others. It's about taking charge of your narrative instead of allowing external elements to dictate it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why wouldn't the starting point be where we have common ground? If it's a common belief for good reasons, then we should be able to get from "questions like "is this thing coherent?" and "is it reasonable to take this thing seriously?" to questions like "does the thing exist?" very quickly.



So until we turn on the basement light, we have to entertain the possibility that someone's feeling of dread at the top of the basement stairs is because there's really a monster down there?

The problem is that it only works on the common or if you like objective. The moment it in effect becomes individual and subjective for how to live as a human, your examples which are all objective have no relevance for the individual and subjective.

Further your hidden subjective individual faith/belief is that the universe is reasonable, knowable and natural. But there is no evidence for that and it is possible to believe differently.

 

[PureX]

The question of whether something is true or real often gets framed by the believers in the thing... e.g. monotheists set the question as "does God exist?"

In a situation with no evidence either way, this framing is important because it lends itself to the balance fallacy: when the answer to the question "does God exist?" is "I don't know," there's a (fallacious) implication that both sides have equal merit.

... but here's the thing: with no evidence either way, every question can be answered with "I don't know":

- is the existence of God worth investigating? I don't know.
- is God possible? I don't know.
- is there there the slightest reason to think God might not be impossible? I don't know.

... so which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

The real problem here is presuming that the answer requires our knowing. As opposed to it actually only requiring our opinion. We all already know that no one knows whether their answer is true or false. So asking with that requirement is an illogical waste of effort. All we can ever actually get is an opinion. Not knowledge.

So once we accept that reality, we can ask for and discuss whatever opinions we get.

 

[LuisDantas]

The question of whether something is true or real often gets framed by the believers in the thing... e.g. monotheists set the question as "does God exist?"

In a situation with no evidence either way, this framing is important because it lends itself to the balance fallacy: when the answer to the question "does God exist?" is "I don't know," there's a (fallacious) implication that both sides have equal merit.

... but here's the thing: with no evidence either way, every question can be answered with "I don't know":

- is the existence of God worth investigating? I don't know.
- is God possible? I don't know.
- is there there the slightest reason to think God might not be impossible? I don't know.

... so which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

I'm with @SalixIncendium here. The sane starting point has to be:

"What is god?"

Or preferably: "What do I mean to say when I talk of 'god'?"

In practice, shortly after I will have to follow with "How will I deal with the existence of so many entirely incompatible understandings of that very same word?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm with @SalixIncendium here. The sane starting point has to be:

"What is god?"

Or preferably: "What do I mean to say when I talk of 'god'?"

Well, I start with how do I know that I know. And as a skeptic, I end with that I don't know in the objective sense.
So it is to me, not really about God, but what it means to say I know...

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, I start with how do I know that I know. And as a skeptic, I end with that I don't know in the objective sense.
So it is to me, not really about God, but what it means to say I know...

It means whatever I mean to say with that word.

Ultimately, there isn't any way of avoiding the responsibility of knowing how I want to use it that is worth the trouble.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

The question of whether something is true or real often gets framed by the believers in the thing... e.g. monotheists set the question as "does God exist?"

In a situation with no evidence either way, this framing is important because it lends itself to the balance fallacy: when the answer to the question "does God exist?" is "I don't know," there's a (fallacious) implication that both sides have equal merit.

... but here's the thing: with no evidence either way, every question can be answered with "I don't know":

- is the existence of God worth investigating? I don't know.
- is God possible? I don't know.
- is there there the slightest reason to think God might not be impossible? I don't know.

... so which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

I think @Quintessence hit the nail on the head. What is the word being used pointing to for the user of the word? That, to my mind, is the starting point. Once that is established, you are off to the races.

As an example, if the question is whether Marduk is a real and existing entity, existing independently from human abstraction and imagination, then one evaluates all the available evidence and draws their conclusion. The evidence may be sufficient to form a definite answer. Often though, the evidence may only permit one to comment on the degree of likelyhood.

If there is absolutely "no evidence either way", as you have phrased it, to establish a conceived entity's indepedent and real existence, then ones conclusion should fall heavily towards a conclusion of it's existence being unlikely. As you suggest, it would be succumbing to the balance fallacy to conclude otherwise.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It means whatever I mean to say with that word.

Ultimately, there isn't any way of avoiding the responsibility of knowing how I want to use it that is worth the trouble.

Yeah, and it might mean differently when I use it. And for trouble, only some of that is objective in regards to objective reality.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah, and it might mean differently when I use it. And for trouble, only some of that is objective in regards to objective reality.

Not sure what you mean here.

Using the word carelessly is easily shown to be destructive. It very often amounts to presenting a dysfunctional concept and insisting that it must be treated as a cornerstone of whole motivational doctrines.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not sure what you mean here.

Using the word carelessly is easily shown to be destructive. It very often amounts to presenting a dysfunctional concept and insisting that it must be treated as a cornerstone of whole motivational doctrines.

Yeah, I am speaking about epistemology. You are speaking about religion.
To me knowledge is broader than just religion.

And yes, I am an atheist and not religious.

 

[HonestJoe]

... but here's the thing: with no evidence either way, every question can be answered with "I don't know":

Even with evidence, the right answer to any formal question can be (and often is) "I don't know" (and if you think you know, it often just means you didn't understand the question ). The trick is to ask different smaller questions that can be answered so your overall answer becomes "I don't know but...".

- is the existence of God worth investigating? I don't know.
- is God possible? I don't know.
- is there there the slightest reason to think God might not be impossible? I don't know.

Anything is possible, which is exactly why we can't investigate any possibility.

Simply asking "Does God exist?" (distinct from "Do you believe...?") is always going to lead to the "I don't know" answer, so you need to turn to the "smaller" questions that the existence of God is commonly presented as an answer to.

... so which question is a reasonable starting point when we have no information?

The starting point depends on the destination you're aiming for. I personally don't see a lot of point in spending time seeking evidence for (or against) any gods. There are plenty of things that I do give thought to that are often associated with the topic, like morality, society and finding a purpose to life, but there are no reasons those questions need necessarily lead to any form of deity, let alone one specific one.

Questions like "Can I pay the electricity bill?", "How can I make my sick friend feel better?" and "What am I going to have for dinner?" tend to be more important in day-to-day life, and unless God himself can offer any useful answers to those questions, whether he exists or not doesn't matter.

 

[PureX]

I'm with @SalixIncendium here. The sane starting point has to be:

"What is god?"

Or preferably: "What do I mean to say when I talk of 'god'?"

In practice, shortly after I will have to follow with "How will I deal with the existence of so many entirely incompatible understandings of that very same word?"

All you're going to get in nearly every instance is the other person's subjective conception of God. (God is love, God is justice, God is the beardy guy in the sky, ...) And what is that beyond an opinion? Then what? Do you want to argue with their opinion? To what end? To show them how wrong you think they are and how right you think you are?

What would any of this have to do with the actual existence of God?

 

[LuisDantas]

All you're going to get in nearly every instance is the other person's subjective conception of God. (God is love, God is justice, God is the beardy guy in the sky, ...) And what is that beyond an opinion? Then what? Do you want to argue with their opinion? To what end? To show them how wrong they are and how right your are?

What would any of this have to do with the actual existence of God?

What, do you disapprove of the pursuit of clarity on what others value and want to achieve?

Do you want to deny me the right to attempt to detect, understand and protect myself against the often confused or delluded motivations and goals of others?

Yes, I want to argue with people who attempt to justify destructive behavior with their god-beliefs. Do you have any issue with that?

 

[PureX]

Questions like "Can I pay the electricity bill?", "How can I make my sick friend feel better?" and "What am I going to have for dinner?" tend to be more important in day-to-day life, and unless God himself can offer any useful answers to those questions, whether he exists or not doesn't matter.

I think that how people choose to conceptualize God can help them with those kinds of issues, a lot. And that's why so many people choose to characterize and conceptualize the God ideal as they do. But how much does any of this help answer the question of God's actual existence?

Certainly some.

 

[PureX]

What, do you disapprove of the pursuit of clarity on what others value and want to achieve?

That would depend on the agenda behind seeking that clarity.

Do you want to deny me the right to attempt to detect, understand and protect myself against the often confused or delluded motivations and goals of others?

Is that really what you think you're doing?

Yes, I want to argue with people who attempt to justify destructive behavior with their god-beliefs. Do you have any issue with that?

It seems to me that YOU should have some issues with that.