Comments: Heyo vs. Snow White

[PoetPhilosopher]

I started this thread as a comments section for the One-on-one debate between @Heyo and myself which is found here: Snow White vs. Heyo: Agnosticism is the Most Logical Position

Let us know if there are any questions or subjects you'd like us to tackle within the scope of the debate.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@Snow White, I am curious about the following:

Agnosticism is sometimes defined as "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena". This definition has two major flaws. One, it is based on a negative claim that cannot be proven or disproven. How can one know that nothing can be known?​

I recently quoted the following in another thread:

Strahler ventures onto the turf of philosophical naturalism when he points out how supernaturalism’s lack of methodology renders it metaphysically sterile, in effect pointing out the inseparable connection between epistemology and metaphysics:​

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable in response to human attempts to gain knowledge of it in the same manner that humans gain knowledge of the natural realm (by experience)…. Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: “You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.” [Arthur N. Strahler, Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1992)]​

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation. [source]​

What are your thoughts on this claim by Forrest and Strahler, keeping in mind the difference between your "nothing is known or can be known" and Forrest's "nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation"?

Thanks. And thanks for your thoughtful comments in the debate thread. I hope you'll forgive me if I refrain from voting in this one.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

@Snow White, I am curious about the following:

Agnosticism is sometimes defined as "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena". This definition has two major flaws. One, it is based on a negative claim that cannot be proven or disproven. How can one know that nothing can be known?​

I recently quoted the following in another thread:

Strahler ventures onto the turf of philosophical naturalism when he points out how supernaturalism’s lack of methodology renders it metaphysically sterile, in effect pointing out the inseparable connection between epistemology and metaphysics:​

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable in response to human attempts to gain knowledge of it in the same manner that humans gain knowledge of the natural realm (by experience)…. Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying: “You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.” [Arthur N. Strahler, Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1992)]​

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation. [source]​

What are your thoughts on this claim by Forrest and Strahler, keeping in mind the difference between your "nothing is known or can be known" and Forrest's "nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation"?

Thanks. And thanks for your thoughtful comments in the debate thread. I hope you'll forgive me if I refrain from voting in this one.

I believe what you quoted is interesting! And I feel I actually touched upon it lightly, when I said in my debate post in the one-on-one thread that if science found a god, it wouldn't be the theists' God.

So, I'd say that it's possible my ideas might be similar. As for whether I agree or disagree with the quoted material, I don't think I could really explain in a way where I express a binary approval or binary disagreement to the quote/material. Some subjects are too vast to simply say "I agree" or "I disagree".

 

[vulcanlogician]

I loved your post, Snow White. Same goes for @Heyo

I have grabbed some popcorn and strapped in to enjoy the debate! I've noticed that the two of you have listed your own separate definitions of agnosticism. (In fact, you've both done due diligence in listing several types and "levels" of agnosticism, which I thought was cool.) I hope you guys eventually come to agree on a single definition that appeals to both of you for use during the remainder of the debate. That may be a bit of a process, but I think it will help the overall usefulness of the debate.

Cheers! Have fun!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... if science found a god, it wouldn't be the theists' God.

I wouldn't know. I do, however, suspect that the theists' God is very much a function of

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@Snow White, you wrote:

An important piece of evidence against believers is their diversity. As I said above, if there was something objective about the gods, that knowledge would spread and lead to unification of denominations.​

You seem to be claiming that, if there was something objective about the gods, that something would necessarily be both knowable and known.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have not read the thread in question at all. So I would have to say it is definitely going best for @Heyo . Or maybe for @Snow White . I might change my mind later.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"levels" of agnosticism

No doubt some are not sure what that means -- I, for one, am really not sure what that means -- so we have at least two levels already.

This entry might be a good place to start.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

@Snow White, you wrote:

An important piece of evidence against believers is their diversity. As I said above, if there was something objective about the gods, that knowledge would spread and lead to unification of denominations.​

You seem to be claiming that, if there was something objective about the gods, that something would necessarily be both knowable and known.

@Heyo wrote that.

 

[Heyo]

@Snow White, you wrote:

An important piece of evidence against believers is their diversity. As I said above, if there was something objective about the gods, that knowledge would spread and lead to unification of denominations.​

You seem to be claiming that, if there was something objective about the gods, that something would necessarily be both knowable and known.

I said that and no, I don't think that something objective would automatically be known. But if there was some objective that is known, that knowledge would spread eventually. Thus, the lack of any consensus is evidence of total ignorance.
Furthermore, the lack of any attempt to gain consensus is evidence that the believers know about their ignorance and the futility to look for objective evidence.

 

[vulcanlogician]

No doubt some are not sure what that means -- I, for one, am really not sure what that means -- so we have at least two levels already.

This entry might be a good place to start.

Well you could define it in terms of how you answer this question:

Does God exist?

Yes: theist
No: atheist
I don't know: agnostic

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well you could define it in terms of how you answer this question:

Does God exist?

Yes: theist
No: atheist
I don't know: agnostic

One could do any number of things.

 

[vulcanlogician]

One could do any number of things.

Yes. Just like when we did a math problem in elementary school. 1 + 2 = 3.

I suppose the elementary school teachers could have conspired to delude their students into thinking this. It isn't really true and how do we know? There isn't any footage.

1+2=3 isn't some kind of objective truth, is it? Or is it?

I personally think that it is.

 

[vulcanlogician]

One could do any number of things.

Yes. Just like when you did a math problem in elementary school. 1 + 2 = 3.

I suppose the elementary school teachers could have conspired to delude their students into thinking this. It isn't really true and how do we know? There isn't any footage.

1+2=3 isn't some kind of objective truth. It's simply a belief people have. It is in no way demonstrable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes. Just like when we did a math problem in elementary school....

When I want an elementary school level discussion of philosophy I'll be sure to check back with you.

 

[vulcanlogician]

When I want an elementary school level discussion of philosophy I'll be sure to check back with you.

I hope I can provide that. An elementary school discussion of philosophy is way beyond my wheelhouse. I suppose I should have started with that. I apologize for not doing so.

 

[Heyo]

Well you could define it in terms of how you answer this question:

Does God exist?

Yes: theist
No: atheist
I don't know: agnostic

I don't know and neither do you: Agnostic

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I said that and no, I don't think that something objective would automatically be known. But if there was some objective that is known, that knowledge would spread eventually. Thus, the lack of any consensus is evidence of total ignorance. [emphasis added - JS]

That is a remarkably absurd statement.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Thus, the lack of any consensus is evidence of total ignorance.

Or, it could be evidence that what Revelation 12:9 says….

“….Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth…”

…is accurate.

And Christendom, claiming to represent Christ, has been the most ‘misled’, ie., attacked, of all religions; Christianity has been a target since its inception, now having some 33,000+ (some say 40,000) divisions.

No other religion even comes close.

Sad. But should be expected. (Matthew 7:21-23; my question is, how did Jesus know this would happen?)

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The current debate has concluded. We welcome additional feedback. Thank you.