Agnostics: is there anything more to your agnosticism?

[Mock Turtle]

A question for those who identify as agnostics.

When I hear people talk about why they consider themselves agnostics, I generally hear points raised like:

- the problem of hard solipsism (i.e. the "Brain in a Vat" problem)
- flaws in human perception and reasoning
- the limitations of inductive reasoning

... but all of these issues apply to human knowledge generally. They don't apply more to God than they do to any other claims.

So agnostics: is there anything more to your agnosticism?

Put another way: do you have a special level of uncertainty about god-claims that goes over and above the level of uncertainty you have about knowledge claims in general?

I am more atheistic as to the depictions of any creator arising from religious beliefs but slightly agnostic as to the possibility of something existing, although of course not knowing in what form such might take.

As for much else, I accept that I will likely only have partial knowledge, if much at all, with regards the subject, and the matter of any creator is more or less off bounds, given that I have little hope (and to be honest, not that much interest) as to understanding the physics and relevant possibilities that might be involved in that which we can study let alone the philosophical or any other considerations. I have looked into all this but probably not enough to satisfy some critics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't identify as an agnostic (colloquial meaning) but as an Agnostic (philosophical meaning). So this may be not for me?

That were never reasons for my Agnosticism. I see ample evidence that theists don't know what a god is and ample evidence that they don't want to know.

I have a special level of certainty about god-claims, i.e. I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about.

It sounds like you're saying that god-claims - as they generally sit now - have further to go to demonstrate themselves than most claims do.

IOW, you seem to be suggesting that god-claims are in "not even wrong" territory... right?

 

[Heyo]

It sounds like you're saying that god-claims - as they generally sit now - have further to go to demonstrate themselves than most claims do.

IOW, you seem to be suggesting that god-claims are in "not even wrong" territory... right?

Even further away. "Not even wrong" is just unfalsifiable, "god" is a word without meaning. And the most confusing thing about it is that theists and atheists alike are under the illusion that they know what they are talking about. Only when you start to question them you realize they don't.

 

[Left Coast]

Okay, what it is you take for granted in your thinking?
You know this drill.

Yes, I do know this drill. You preach self- defeating absurdism instead of actually replying to what I say. I told you to save your sermons. I'm not interested. And you're very obviously not interested in what I have to say, since you just repost the same sermon and the same links to everyone, over and over again, thread after thread.

Bye Mikkel!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, I do know this drill. You preach self- defeating absurdism instead of actually replying to what I say. I told you to save your sermons. I'm not interested. And you're very obviously not interested in what I have to say, since you just repost the same sermon and the same links to everyone, over and over again, thread after thread.

Bye Mikkel!

Yes, that is all I do.

 

[Kooky]

Well, if we start with the belief that objective reality is in general epistemologically fair, then we can start. But if you claim you know that, then you are to me a different kind of believer than me.

Objective reality is irrrelevant when we cannot show that we can perceive it, and we cannot. Introducing objective reality just introduces a Ding an sich which we cannot reach, so if we take our skeptical absolutism seriously then there is no point in assuming it in the first place.

That doesn't mean that for the everyday world we can't use a form of knowledge as shorthand and debate other things.

Which is really all that needs to be said about radical skepticism/absolute agnosticism.
I find it a useful tool to employ in specific circumstances to highlight the limits of our epistemic and ethical claims, but as a coherent thought system to explore I find it largely self-defeating, and perhaps a little pointless.

 

[Kooky]

Consistency is as an abstract concept just like God. So with the word "no". Stop using abstract words. I only accept actually real objective physical things as really real. Can you spot the error in the sentence before this one?

All words are abstract, but they are also physical things.

Love is not real or physical (especially with social distancing, lol). Many things are real that do not have physical form. Some have physical form (like electricity), but our senses can't perceive them.

If we want to be really pedantic (and I feel like it at the moment, so bear with me) then all these abstract notions have a physical component we associate with. For example, love is a physical, chemical reaction that our brains/neurons have to specific beings (people, animals...) - and arguably, without that reaction, we have no love.

Similarly, words transport meaning but they are also sound waves, or clusters of ink on paper, or clusters of screen lights, and without any of these physical elements, we would have no words and thus would be unable to transport the meaning we associate with specific words or phrases.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Objective reality is irrrelevant when we cannot show that we can perceive it, and we cannot. Introducing objective reality just introduces a Ding an sich which we cannot reach, so if we take our skeptical absolutism seriously then there is no point in assuming it in the first place.

It is found through doubting and so are its limits.

Which is really all that needs to be said about radical skepticism/absolute agnosticism.
I find it a useful tool to employ in specific circumstances to highlight the limits of our epistemic and ethical claims, but as a coherent thought system to explore I find it largely self-defeating, and perhaps a little pointless.

Well, yes. But you can do a combination of skepticism and coherence, if you accept that coherence is a human system.
I get what you are say, but I suspect that all your standards for how to differentiate experiences are in your mind just as coherence.
And what you find as the bold is a first person perspective.

As a global skeptic I assume that you and I exist along with everything else in the everyday world and then I use a map of beliefs, that apparently work.

 

[Kooky]

As a global skeptic I assume that you and I exist along with everything else in the everyday world and then I use a map of beliefs, that apparently work.

Which largely proves my point. You could not have arrived at this position from a premise of absolute skepticism.
At some point, you'd have had to ditch the skepticism and pragmatically accept the reality of your perceptions and beliefs (that are imperfect, inaccurate, faulty, and may construct a world that does not even exist).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All words are abstract, but they are also physical things.
...

No, not really they are a class of experiences, which we also call physical things. You can't observe a physical thing, you have a set of experiences, you name physical things. And yes, a part of the everyday world is objective. But you don't have to believe in physical things.

 

[Kooky]

No, not really they are a class of experiences, which we also call physical things. You can't observe a physical thing, you have a set of experiences, you name physical things. And yes, a part of the everyday world is objective. But you don't have to believe in physical things.

I would argue that it's actually the other way around - physical things are categories of experience, since we cannot assert their reality outside of our subjective experiences.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which largely proves my point. You could not have arrived at this position from a premise of absolute skepticism.
At some point, you'd have had to ditch the skepticism and pragmatically accept the reality of your perceptions and beliefs (that are imperfect, inaccurate, faulty, and may construct a world that does not even exist).

What you call radical skepticism is a method against naive realism, objectivism and metaphysics. Some people claim a knowledge I can't replicate. And some of them are some of the non-religious people.

 

[Kooky]

What you call radical skepticism is a method against naive realism, objectivism and metaphysics. Some people claim a knowledge I can't replicate. And some of them are some of the non-religious people.

Yes, absolutely. And as with any philosophical method, there is the danger of running away with it into areas where it is not suited for and may actually harm ourselves or others, which is largely what I was objecting to.

I have probably misread your position on this issue - if I did, please accept my apology.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, absolutely. And as with any philosophical method, there is the danger of running away with it into areas where it is not suited for and may actually harm ourselves or others, which is largely what I was objecting to.

I have probably misread your position on this issue - if I did, please accept my apology.

No, I do in fact overdo it. But in some debates the claim "we know the world" is usually followed with some subjective reason for why other people should stop believing like they do, because the reasons given are universal for all humans. It is a form of rational imperialism and in some cases a claim to an authority that is not there.

 

[Kooky]

Even further away. "Not even wrong" is just unfalsifiable, "god" is a word without meaning. And the most confusing thing about it is that theists and atheists alike are under the illusion that they know what they are talking about. Only when you start to question them you realize they don't.

To be far, the concept of "god" is hardly special in this regard. "Free will" and, indeed the concept of "freedom" in general are similar such culprits, "justice" and "fairness" are similar - though, I would argue, typically less vague in what they are supposed to denote than the first three.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To be far, the concept of "god" is hardly special in this regard. "Free will" and, indeed the concept of "freedom" in general are similar such culprits, "justice" and "fairness" are similar - though, I would argue, typically less vague in what they are supposed to denote than the first three.

There is a whole class of words, which has no objective referent as independent of thoughts.

 

[Kooky]

There is a whole class of words, which has no objective referent as independent of thoughts.

It's not that. The words I'm referring to are so disparate in what referents they contain, and thus change meaning so much from person to person, that I would argue that they contain no or very little in the way of clear referents to begin with. In this I would argue that these terms are different from other abstract notions that we can agree upon because they are much more easily 'definable' if you will.

 

[Heyo]

To be far, the concept of "god" is hardly special in this regard. "Free will" and, indeed the concept of "freedom" in general are similar such culprits, "justice" and "fairness" are similar - though, I would argue, typically less vague in what they are supposed to denote than the first three.

All abstract concepts have that definition problem, some more some less but only a few are actively defended against getting defined. "Consciousness" is one of those and I suspect philosophers have conspired against the rest of the world because the vagueness of the term means job security for them. "God" is defended against definition by almost all believers so that they can indulge in their illusion that "god" is that what they want it to be. Allowing for a definition would mean to make compromises and the illusion would vanish in a puff of logic.
What I don't understand is why atheists let them have their illusion by playing their game.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All abstract concepts have that definition problem, some more some less but only a few are actively defended against getting defined. "Consciousness" is one of those and I suspect philosophers have conspired against the rest of the world because the vagueness of the term means job security for them. "God" is defended against definition by almost all believers so that they can indulge in their illusion that "god" is that what they want it to be. Allowing for a definition would mean to make compromises and the illusion would vanish in a puff of logic.
What I don't understand is why atheists let them have their illusion by playing their game.

I have the same problem with "real".