A while back, agnosticism was a big fad. It was cool and all to have doubts about religion, but totally not cool to be extremist about it. There could be a God, or they could be no God eh? To take a stand – theism or atheism – implies taking a belief; to trascend the realm of logic and provable assertions. Besides, there’s nothing wrong in covering your bases what?
Now, I must admit that I find agnosticism sillier and more contemptible than theism. I find it quite annoying really. (Though not as bad as Das-Kapital thumping marxists I must admit)
If you face this too, and seek a cure to the grave societal evil of agnostics springing up time and again and demanding a logical discussion about agnosticism et al, just point them to this excellent interview with Douglas Adams. One of his answers –
People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)
Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn’t belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don’t believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn’t make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don’t know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it’s the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.
I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” – then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.
Note: This is another instance of induction at work. Both theism and atheism are induced hypotheses. But sometimes, you do not just believe/have faith in an induced hypothesis, you are convinced of it.
Frequently this is the simplest hypothesis that fits the observation [called the Occam’s razor]
For example, a child sees one human speak with his mouth. It sees another human speak with her mouth. The kid also speaks with its mouth. It is then convinced of its induced hypothesis that all humans speak with their mouths. It does not merely have faith that it is so. Douglas Adam’s question of whether moon is made of rock or cheese is another excellent and egregious example.
Interested people can find some good commentary on Agnosticism and its fallacies in the book “Atheism: The Case Against God” by George H Smith.
my 2 paise on this –
there is a subtle difference between belief and faith and a necessity to re-examine the usage of these words equivalently.
belief – Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty.
faith – The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth.
Both words do find their use being interchanged often as is the case in your write up as well. But while belief follows with/without there being any evidence, it is my “belief” that faith is a consequence of experience.
Most theists/atheists would then be classified only as believers or people who are tied to a belief. Faith to me implies conviction based on personal experience.
Most theists/atheists would then be classified only as believers or people who are tied to a belief. Faith to me implies conviction based on personal experience.
Navin, the whole point of the post was that atheists were not just believers, but that they had a deep conviction of their induced hypothesis.
But you’ve made an interesting point that even even theists are like that. But while faith implies a stronger belief, it still implies a belief. Maybe what you want to say is that theists do not just believe, they are convinced. Yes, it does appear to be true.
Please explain how your logic of “belief” works at the other end of the spectrum.
Specious arguments are sure funny!
Ah Nilu, there was no argument in the post.
Was that what you found specious?
There was mention of a couple of facts though:
1. Atheism and theism are induced hypotheses.
2. As D. Adams said, atheists do not have even a semblance of a doubt regarding the existence of a God i.e. they are convinced of their induced hypothesis. This was just a re-iteration of definitions.
If they did have a doubt, they won’t be called atheists, they’d be called agnostics. Agnostics differ from doubting-theists in that doubting-theists pray to their God while agnostics prefer to chill it out.
The purport of Navin’s comment was that we should slide those darned doubting-theists to the agnostics team, and only deem non-doubting-theists as theists. And I kinda agree with him.
Intellectual debates apart,I wonder if there is any evidence or experience to support the hypothesis of the non existence of a God.
The existence or non existence aspect could be supported by personal experience, bearing in mind the fallacy that no one but the experienced can claim to validate that experience.
All other arguments pro or against are only armchair philosophy.
Navin
42,
I don’t really care what Navin say. You have not answered the question.
Nilu: I don’t really care what Navin say. You have not answered the question.
ah, if you had cared a bit more, maybe you’d realize that I have answered your question in my prev. comment.
Navin: I wonder if there is any evidence or experience to support the hypothesis of the non existence of a God.
You sound suspiciously like wanting a logical debate about atheism et al, the very thing against which the post was directed. For the same, do read Douglas Adams interviews and other such sources. The thing is atheism is an induced hypothesis that follows the Occam’s razor, so I am as convinced about it as I am that I’m not a brain lying in a vat in a lab of a far advanced civilization.
Quite controversy site but very interesting :)! I’m really excited!
————————–
Signature, Jeff *\/* phentermine (http://www.phentermineeffect.com) *\/*
“The existence or non existence aspect could be supported by personal experience, bearing in mind the fallacy that no one but the experienced can claim to validate that experience.”
Coming in a bit late I guess…
I agree with Navin in sorts. Occam’s razor can be applied both ways. For me it made more sense to assume that there was a creator, ever since I was a small child. To me personal experience and Occam’s Razor led me to theism. To someone else, it will lead them to atheism. I am now in that annoying camp called agnosticism, simply because I “believe” that I can not know either way, and I have no faith. Although I do believe their is a truth, I just don’t think it is knowable.
Also, many atheist’s I talk too do have doubts, they just believe there is no god.
Nothing exists in a vaccuum. Fact. If nothing exists in a vaccuum, there has to be a vacuum, as it is where nothing exists, which is something. The vaccum is something, which means that nothing is also something, if it was not in a vaccuum where would it be? (The only place nothing exists is in a vaccum.) It wouldn’t be, period, it would be something. Which means nothing would be something. Nihil esse quid. Nothing is also something, which means nothing doesn’t exist, as something exists. Something must exist, outside the vacuum. Which it does. The universe and everything in it just an example. As to the existence of anything else, that’s an arguement adsurdum. A premise being true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true, is a logical fallacy.
Everything in existence has an essential nature to it, it has structure. This is essentialism. What something is, is more important than what it could be. Essense, structure, is more important than than it’s general existence. What it is, is more important than that it is. The quiddity (whatness / somethingness) of existence is more important than the quality and quantity of existence, itself. It stands to reason then, that nothing is less important than existence, if something is more important than existence. Nothing is secondary to existence, if something is nothing. Nothing is less important than existence, itself. Nothing is less certain than existence. Nothing is then, therefore, more uncertain than existence. Uncertain is synonymous with less certainty. Secondary is synonymous with less important. And lesser is synonymous with negative.
Nothing is more negative than existance. Nothing is more contradictory than existence. Nothing is in more denial than existence. ‘More denial than’ is synonymous with ‘no’. No is synonymous with non. Nothing is non existence, therefore since nothing is something, and something implies existence, existence too is debatable. This why we have philosophy. Existence is synonymous with everything. Everything is debatable. And if everything is something (debate), then it could also be said that since nothing is something, it also proves that something is also nothing (not debate). So it could be said: Something = Nomething. Nothing is therefore indeed debatable, which is why I am debating nothing. Rest assured, however, I am also debating something.
Taoism is a philosophy based upon Lao-Tzu’s basic premise of the conduct that can be described as truest is not the correct conduct. In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tzu also states in Verse 81 that wise men do not debate, however everything is debatable, including nothing. A blanket statement like ‘Wise men do not debate’ can easily be debated. I may not be thought of as wise, but even that is debatable. As is the previous statement. Taoism is only half right. “Wise men do not need to debate” is like saying nothing is everything. Nothing doesn’t = Everything. Nothing = Something, only that much has been proven to be true. Debate is something, but it is not everything. Everything is debatable, that has also been proven to be true, however, it does not mean everything is debated. The brevity of human life prevents the debate of every possible outcome. Nothing is debatable, for a long time, which is why this essay on nothing is soon to be 570 words and counting. This sentence makes 570 words exactly.
Buddhism is the search for nothingness, also known as Nirvana. Since nothing has been proven to be nonexistant, it stands to reason that Nirvana/nothingness does not exist. Buddhism is therefore bunk. Christianity states that God is omnipresent. Abrahamic thought (Judeaism, Christianity, Islam, others) is also bunk as they all state that Hell is the absense of God. Whether this Hell is permanent or transitory depends on the religion. However, if God is omnipresent, God also exists in Hell. Hell is supposed to be the absense of God, yet God is omnipresent, therefore God must exist in Hell as well as Heaven, debunking at least Hell. Christianity is also therefore bunk.
The only way to argue for Hell is to say it is a place of nonexistence, it is a place of nothingness. Nothingness has been proven to not exist. If nothingness existed, it would have existence, therefore it would be something, but since nothing doesn’t exist, then something has to exist. And it does. The universe and everything in it exists. If Hell does not exist, then Abrahamic tradition is bunk. If God exists, he cannot be omnipresent, because he would be present in Hell as well, which the Jews, Christians, Muslims, all believe exists. Hell cannot exist unless God is also present there, otherwise he would not be omnipresent. No Hell, no Christianity. No Hell, no Judaism, No Hell, no Islam.
Giving Christianity, et. al. the benefit of the doubt, Genesis 1:26 states that “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” I am an agnostic. If I am created in God’s image then God must have desired me to be an agnostic. This would mean that God does not know he exists, because he is also an agnostic. God therefore does not know we exist or that he, if he exists, is God, if I am created “in our image”. How many Gods are there? Maybe God is a schizophrenic. From the Bible, he seems to be at least bipolar. I bet the Christians would love that.
As for atheism, if one is an atheist, then God too must be an atheist, according to Gen. 1:26. God would have to KNOW he doesn’t exist. “Cogito ergo sum”, said Descartes. I think therefore I am. God being an atheist is however absurd. To be is to think, at least as far as sentience goes. To think is to be. At least, as far as cogito ergo sum, could further be elaborated upon by also stating, “Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum. I think I think, therefore I think I am.”, Ambrose Bierce. True, Bierce was being humorous when he said this, but he may also be correct, considering the amount of nonsense and suffering there is in the world.
If the atheist is right, however, then God does not exist, so how could he be around to enact Genesis in the first place? No God, no Genesis, no creation in God’s image. Nothing = Something = Nothing. What happens when we die? Oblivion. What happens when we die? Higher Consciousness. Oblivion is higher consciousness. To not remember anything would be enlightening, to say the least… especially if life is suffering. However, nothingness has been proven to be nonexistant. Nothing exists in a vaccum. A vaccuum is something. Something is nothing, by way of proxy.
Since nothing is something, it also proves that something is also nothing because nothing is something and something is equal to something. What happens when we die? Something. Nothing. It’s all the same thing. A better question might be: What happens before we live? Sperm. Egg. What happens to a prune when you kill it by eating it? Molecules become energy become molecules because the universe factory is off, only turning raw material into energy and back again. Same great universe. Different flavor and bigger packaging. Same ingredients.
The Christian notion of God, however is quite bogus. No Hell, no Christianity, remember? This does not necessarily mean that God does indeed exist. I’m not trying to debunk atheism here, just religion. I for one am keeping an open mind, within reason.
As to God, this would mean that God may exist. Something existed before the Big Bang-Big Crunch process. If a time paradox, where did the emptiness come from? Why is it a vaccuum and not a say, a smooth surface? Why no edges? Why does negative repel the like? Why is the sky blue and the grass green? Why? Nothing = Something. That’s why. And that’s what happens when you die. Apathy. It’s my subjectively neutral outlook on the matter.
whew. that is a lot of nothingness to say something about
nothing, or put the other way… which for some reason is easier to understand…that is a lot of something to say nothing about
something…….is that right?
I may have to recant in favor of atheism here. If one is an agnostic, God must also be an agnostic according to Genesis 1:26, but since Christianity and the entire Abrahamic thought process has been rendered bunk, it must be rendered bunk in full, if only for lack of dimensionality. If God is an atheist, then he does not exist. If I didn’t believe that I existed, I would not survive.
Even a paremecium has semi (infinidecimally semi) awareness that it must EAT to survive. A tree knows it must consume light and water to remain a tree and not a pile of decaying mulch on the ground. So, if god isn’t even as sentient as say, a rock, being zero sentience, God (He/She/It) has no awareness of himself and cannot exist. This would defy all religion, all spirituality, all notions of trascendence. God does not exist.
I am a believer.
The English term “agnostic†is derived from the Greek “agnostos,†which means, “to not know.†An agnostic is one who admits, “I don’t know.â€
that was from a philosophy website i went to to search that a agnostic is.
to me this is saying oyu dont know anything and you are afriad of what is better than u. Ok lets say there isnt a God. How is earth perfect for us? How is there a perfect apmosphere to protect us? How is there water here to drink? Why isnt any other planet like earth? And if we did evolve from apes then why is there still apes? If we evolved then the whole race of apes would evolve. Why havent we found other life forms on other planets with the kind of technology we have now? And if we evolved from omeboa or some bacteria then how do we have every organ to like and we have surpassed the smarts of bacteria and also how does a bacteria infect a bacteria? If we evolved from bacteria?
One answer
GOD MADE US
and if u r gay , what if adam or eve was gay then none of us would be here
and if u dont believe in God and makin adam and eve then re-read what I typed before.
I am a believer.
The English term “agnostic†is derived from the Greek “agnostos,†which means, “to not know.†An agnostic is one who admits, “I don’t know.â€
that was from a philosophy website i went to to search that a agnostic is.
to me this is saying oyu dont know anything and you are afriad of what is better than u. Ok lets say there isnt a God. How is earth perfect for us? How is there a perfect apmosphere to protect us? How is there water here to drink? Why isnt any other planet like earth? And if we did evolve from apes then why is there still apes? If we evolved then the whole race of apes would evolve. Why havent we found other life forms on other planets with the kind of technology we have now? And if we evolved from omeboa or some bacteria then how do we have every organ and some extra? and we have surpassed the smarts of bacteria and also how does a bacteria infect a bacteria? If we evolved from bacteria?
One answer
GOD MADE US
and if u r gay , what if adam or eve was gay then none of us would be here
and if u dont believe in God and makin adam and eve then re-read what I typed before.
you make a category mistake
Hello i’m researching Agnosticism for a school project. I’m interested in asking you (or any other Agnostic reading) a few (15-20) questions about the belief and how you have converted. If you are interested, my email is krockmc@yahoo.com. Please contact me soon. Thank you.
I am an agnostic because I do not know and an atheist because i do not believe. That means I don’t believe either way and is a strongly held view, not sitting on the fence!
I get quite pissed of with those who try to define what others believe in. It gets a bit like those religous looneys who go on about other religous looneys not being the real religous looneys. Why not just let each of us define our own terms.
For most people god thinks like a human being pray and please him and he will reward you ie god thinks like a human being.It is beyond the capacity of our brain to understand god.It is beyond our thought horizon. Why dont we leave him there instead of fighting over my god is the superior to your god.Religion has caused misery and killed more people than it has saved.Society looks down on the atheist who is less harmfull than the religious.