Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Is agnosticism valid?

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 9:30:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Agnosticism suggests that there is a dispute over knowledge, and agnosticism is the middle ground. However, agnosticism is not middle ground, but actually grants the possibility of god without evidence.The agnostic gives validity to arbitrary claims of god by suggesting negative evidence is necessary for disbelief, but no evidence is necessary for belief. The agnostic grants epistemological respect to claims without evidential support and in doing so equates the rational with the arbitrary.

"Agnosticism is not simply the pleading of ignorance. It is the enshrinement of ignorance. . . . A passion for the arbitrary does not derive from concern for logic. Its root is a feeling that has been given precedence over logic. In some agnostics, the feeling is cowardice, the simple fear that a stand on contentious issues will antagonize people. In other agnostics, the feeling is more convoluted. It is akin to glee, the malicious glee of subverting all ideas and thus of baiting the men who have integrity required to hold convictions. This is the glee of the destroyer, the mind-hater, the nihilist. [Peikoff, OPAR, pp. 169-70.]"

http://rebirthofreason.com...

Your thoughts?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 9:48:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 9:30:44 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Agnosticism suggests that there is a dispute over knowledge, and agnosticism is the middle ground. However, agnosticism is not middle ground, but actually grants the possibility of god without evidence.The agnostic gives validity to arbitrary claims of god by suggesting negative evidence is necessary for disbelief, but no evidence is necessary for belief. The agnostic grants epistemological respect to claims without evidential support and in doing so equates the rational with the arbitrary.

"Agnosticism is not simply the pleading of ignorance. It is the enshrinement of ignorance. . . . A passion for the arbitrary does not derive from concern for logic. Its root is a feeling that has been given precedence over logic. In some agnostics, the feeling is cowardice, the simple fear that a stand on contentious issues will antagonize people. In other agnostics, the feeling is more convoluted. It is akin to glee, the malicious glee of subverting all ideas and thus of baiting the men who have integrity required to hold convictions. This is the glee of the destroyer, the mind-hater, the nihilist. [Peikoff, OPAR, pp. 169-70.]"

http://rebirthofreason.com...

Your thoughts?

Agnosticism admits that we are not omniscient and that there are still infinite horizons we have yet to see past. I do not see that admitting ignorance is a bad thing. I also submit that any actual agnostic will be functionally identical to a strong atheist since no evidence should lead to the default of no existence. I object to the characterization of agnostics as "malicious glee of subverting all ideas and thus of baiting the men who have integrity required to hold convictions".
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 10:03:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 9:48:25 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/30/2015 9:30:44 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Agnosticism suggests that there is a dispute over knowledge, and agnosticism is the middle ground. However, agnosticism is not middle ground, but actually grants the possibility of god without evidence.The agnostic gives validity to arbitrary claims of god by suggesting negative evidence is necessary for disbelief, but no evidence is necessary for belief. The agnostic grants epistemological respect to claims without evidential support and in doing so equates the rational with the arbitrary.

"Agnosticism is not simply the pleading of ignorance. It is the enshrinement of ignorance. . . . A passion for the arbitrary does not derive from concern for logic. Its root is a feeling that has been given precedence over logic. In some agnostics, the feeling is cowardice, the simple fear that a stand on contentious issues will antagonize people. In other agnostics, the feeling is more convoluted. It is akin to glee, the malicious glee of subverting all ideas and thus of baiting the men who have integrity required to hold convictions. This is the glee of the destroyer, the mind-hater, the nihilist. [Peikoff, OPAR, pp. 169-70.]"

http://rebirthofreason.com...

Your thoughts?

Agnosticism admits that we are not omniscient and that there are still infinite horizons we have yet to see past.

I don't see that we need to be omniscient to reject claims for which there is no evidence.

I do not see that admitting ignorance is a bad thing. I also submit that any actual agnostic will be functionally identical to a strong atheist since no evidence should lead to the default of no existence.

I'm not sure I follow.

I object to the characterization of agnostics as "malicious glee of subverting all ideas and thus of baiting the men who have integrity required to hold convictions".

Yes, probably a bit harsh (and not appropriate for this audience),but I do strongly agree with the "enshrinement of ignorance". Giving credence to an unsupported claim over a rejection of that claim by clinging to "I don't know" is a position of cowardice.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 10:07:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As we cannot state for certain that no deity exists in some realm or other, I think being an agnostic like myself is the default position.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 10:13:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 10:03:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/30/2015 9:48:25 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/30/2015 9:30:44 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Agnosticism suggests that there is a dispute over knowledge, and agnosticism is the middle ground. However, agnosticism is not middle ground, but actually grants the possibility of god without evidence.The agnostic gives validity to arbitrary claims of god by suggesting negative evidence is necessary for disbelief, but no evidence is necessary for belief. The agnostic grants epistemological respect to claims without evidential support and in doing so equates the rational with the arbitrary.

"Agnosticism is not simply the pleading of ignorance. It is the enshrinement of ignorance. . . . A passion for the arbitrary does not derive from concern for logic. Its root is a feeling that has been given precedence over logic. In some agnostics, the feeling is cowardice, the simple fear that a stand on contentious issues will antagonize people. In other agnostics, the feeling is more convoluted. It is akin to glee, the malicious glee of subverting all ideas and thus of baiting the men who have integrity required to hold convictions. This is the glee of the destroyer, the mind-hater, the nihilist. [Peikoff, OPAR, pp. 169-70.]"

http://rebirthofreason.com...

Your thoughts?

Agnosticism admits that we are not omniscient and that there are still infinite horizons we have yet to see past.

I don't see that we need to be omniscient to reject claims for which there is no evidemce.

And as an agnostic I do reject such claims but do not completely close the door on the possibility.

I do not see that admitting ignorance is a bad thing. I also submit that any actual agnostic will be functionally identical to a strong atheist since no evidence should lead to the default of no existence.

I'm not sure I follow.

As an agnostic I will use the default position. There is no evidence of a deity so I will not worship, pray, genuflect or take any other action that would require belief in a deity so I will be functionally no different than an atheist.

I object to the characterization of agnostics as "malicious glee of subverting all ideas and thus of baiting the men who have integrity required to hold convictions".

Yes, probably a bit harsh (and not appropriate for this audience),but I do strongly agree with the "enshrinement of ignorance". Giving credence to an unsupported claim over a rejection of that claim by clinging to "I don't know" is a position of cowardice.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I don't 'give credence' to an unsupported claim at all. I have rejected that claim due to lack of evidence and will continue to do so. I don't see my position as simply 'I don't know'. I see it as 'You have a claim now prove it. If you can't then I will continue to function as I always have'. I have the same attitude toward ghosts, goblins, Bigfoot, and any other supernatural or paranormal claim.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 10:38:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 10:07:38 AM, JJ50 wrote:
As we cannot state for certain that no deity exists in some realm or other, I think being an agnostic like myself is the default position.

If I claimed you could fly due to some force from another realm beyond our current knowledge, would you also be agnostic to that possibility?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 10:50:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 10:13:21 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/30/2015 10:03:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/30/2015 9:48:25 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/30/2015 9:30:44 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Agnosticism suggests that there is a dispute over knowledge, and agnosticism is the middle ground. However, agnosticism is not middle ground, but actually grants the possibility of god without evidence.The agnostic gives validity to arbitrary claims of god by suggesting negative evidence is necessary for disbelief, but no evidence is necessary for belief. The agnostic grants epistemological respect to claims without evidential support and in doing so equates the rational with the arbitrary.

"Agnosticism is not simply the pleading of ignorance. It is the enshrinement of ignorance. . . . A passion for the arbitrary does not derive from concern for logic. Its root is a feeling that has been given precedence over logic. In some agnostics, the feeling is cowardice, the simple fear that a stand on contentious issues will antagonize people. In other agnostics, the feeling is more convoluted. It is akin to glee, the malicious glee of subverting all ideas and thus of baiting the men who have integrity required to hold convictions. This is the glee of the destroyer, the mind-hater, the nihilist. [Peikoff, OPAR, pp. 169-70.]"

http://rebirthofreason.com...

Your thoughts?

Agnosticism admits that we are not omniscient and that there are still infinite horizons we have yet to see past.

I don't see that we need to be omniscient to reject claims for which there is no evidemce.

And as an agnostic I do reject such claims but do not completely close the door on the possibility.

I am open to all sorts of possibilities, but I see no reason to believe possibilities are plausibilities without evidence.

I do not see that admitting ignorance is a bad thing. I also submit that any actual agnostic will be functionally identical to a strong atheist since no evidence should lead to the default of no existence.

I'm not sure I follow.

As an agnostic I will use the default position. There is no evidence of a deity so I will not worship, pray, genuflect or take any other action that would require belief in a deity so I will be functionally no different than an atheist.

Hmmm, to each their own I suppose, but it seems as though you are equating agnosticism to atheism. I know they overlap, but rejection of the god claim would be beyond agnosticism as I understand it.

I object to the characterization of agnostics as "malicious glee of subverting all ideas and thus of baiting the men who have integrity required to hold convictions".

Yes, probably a bit harsh (and not appropriate for this audience),but I do strongly agree with the "enshrinement of ignorance". Giving credence to an unsupported claim over a rejection of that claim by clinging to "I don't know" is a position of cowardice.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I don't 'give credence' to an unsupported claim at all. I have rejected that claim due to lack of evidence and will continue to do so. I don't see my position as simply 'I don't know'. I see it as 'You have a claim now prove it. If you can't then I will continue to function as I always have'. I have the same attitude toward ghosts, goblins, Bigfoot, and any other supernatural or paranormal claim.

I have the same view, but we also have a definite difference of definitions. Thanks for replying.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 10:52:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 10:38:29 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/30/2015 10:07:38 AM, JJ50 wrote:
As we cannot state for certain that no deity exists in some realm or other, I think being an agnostic like myself is the default position.

If I claimed you could fly due to some force from another realm beyond our current knowledge, would you also be agnostic to that possibility?

Not addressed to me, I know, but just to make my position a bit clearer....

Yep. I am cognizant of what it take so fly so I know it's an impossibility with our current knowledge of the universe. I am also aware of the multiverse theory and the hypotheses that state gravity is somehow leaking between them, hence dark matter. As Shakespeare said, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophies. There my be other universes with different characteristics and laws.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 11:03:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 10:52:23 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/30/2015 10:38:29 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/30/2015 10:07:38 AM, JJ50 wrote:
As we cannot state for certain that no deity exists in some realm or other, I think being an agnostic like myself is the default position.

If I claimed you could fly due to some force from another realm beyond our current knowledge, would you also be agnostic to that possibility?

Not addressed to me, I know, but just to make my position a bit clearer....

Yep. I am cognizant of what it take so fly so I know it's an impossibility with our current knowledge of the universe. I am also aware of the multiverse theory and the hypotheses that state gravity is somehow leaking between them, hence dark matter. As Shakespeare said, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophies. There my be other universes with different characteristics and laws.

Okay, anything beyond our knowledge which seems possible according to what you do know is plausible to you? Oh, and don't go jumping off any buildings! ;-)

I would reject that outright, since there is no knowledge (or evidence) another realm exists.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 11:08:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 11:03:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/30/2015 10:52:23 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/30/2015 10:38:29 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/30/2015 10:07:38 AM, JJ50 wrote:
As we cannot state for certain that no deity exists in some realm or other, I think being an agnostic like myself is the default position.

If I claimed you could fly due to some force from another realm beyond our current knowledge, would you also be agnostic to that possibility?

Not addressed to me, I know, but just to make my position a bit clearer....

Yep. I am cognizant of what it take so fly so I know it's an impossibility with our current knowledge of the universe. I am also aware of the multiverse theory and the hypotheses that state gravity is somehow leaking between them, hence dark matter. As Shakespeare said, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophies. There my be other universes with different characteristics and laws.

Okay, anything beyond our knowledge which seems possible according to what you do know is plausible to you? Oh, and don't go jumping off any buildings! ;-)

As mentioned, I am fully cognizant of the operating laws of our universe. I have never tried to fly without an aircraft around me in some way.

I would reject that outright, since there is no knowledge (or evidence) another realm exists.

Were there not at least persuasive arguments (brane theory, etc) of other, higher dimensions and other universes I would as well.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 11:10:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/30/2015 10:52:23 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/30/2015 10:38:29 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/30/2015 10:07:38 AM, JJ50 wrote:
As we cannot state for certain that no deity exists in some realm or other, I think being an agnostic like myself is the default position.

If I claimed you could fly due to some force from another realm beyond our current knowledge, would you also be agnostic to that possibility?

Not addressed to me, I know, but just to make my position a bit clearer....

Yep. I am cognizant of what it take so fly so I know it's an impossibility with our current knowledge of the universe. I am also aware of the multiverse theory and the hypotheses that state gravity is somehow leaking between them, hence dark matter. As Shakespeare said, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophies. There my be other universes with different characteristics and laws.

I am a big admirer of that particular quote from Shakespeare, and I can agree with it. However, I go further - I can accept things beyond my imagination exist, but I cannot accept that they do by imagination alone.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten