[Luis Dias]

So the other thread went utterly downhill while I was sleeping. I wonder if it's possible to continue the discussion in a more civil manner, because I was still interested in the many diverging viewpoints, namely:

• Whether if the Schrodinger position about God is tenable or not;
• Whether if Agnosticism can ever be reduced to Atheism or not;
• Whether if Vinn diagrams are enough to make points clear or not

My two cents so far: I understand MP's (and others) Schrodinger reasoning about the issue. I really do. Technically I see it. However, I also see practical problems with it:

 - It appears to give both answers equal weight, when OTOH it's patently clear by the not following the rites, traditions and religious observations that agnostics are behaving exactly as if God does not exist (IOW, agnostics are mostly atheists by behavioralistic criteria);
 - Agnosticism seems to ignore the wealth of positive evidence we have gathered that these beliefs are local, cultural, they are about establishing morality and social norms, about psychological comforts and never taken seriously or literally by even the "true" believers (or else why would anyone cry and suffer so much at anyone's funeral? Think about that one);
 - Agnosticism seems to propose a complete surrender to any unfalsifiable proposition that anyone comes up to.

So can we discuss this like the adults we all are? Pretty please?

[karajorma]

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist

That's the first line of the Wikipedia entry on atheism. I think the problem is that most atheists tend to actually agree with the more inclusive definition of what atheism is. Where as most of the people having an issue on the other thread were trying to claim it was the more narrow definition. But the most inclusivedefinition also includes implicit atheism.

Implicit atheism and explicit atheism are subsets of atheism coined by George H. Smith (1979, p. 13-18). Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it". Explicit atheists have considered the idea of deities and have rejected belief that any exist. Implicit atheists thus either have not given the idea of deities much consideration, or, though they do not believe, have not rejected belief.

From this entry.

For those who really think that atheism is about the disbelief of the existence of gods, what is an implicit atheist then?

[MP-Ryan]

To answer kara's question to me from the locked thread (are you an atheist).  We'll use kara's atheist definition:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities

Do I reject belief in the existence of deities?  No.  Similarly, do I support belief in the existence of deities?  Also no.  I am neither an atheist nor a theist.  There's a third option:  I'm someone who's fond of unobserved cats-in-boxes.  This is purely on a philosophical level.  Smith's "implicit atheism" also captures half of this equation.

On a more practical level, do I accept the notion of a Christian God who created the Earth is seven days?  Of course not.  But rejecting specific religious positions, myths, or beliefs does not mean I reject the fundamental premise that deities exist, because I cannot substantiate that claim, nor can I substantiate the opposite claim.  Furthermore, I also sit in the camp that says we probably won't ever be able to substantiate that claim because whenever we measure something, we change it, meaning that the question of the existence of deities' existence is not only unknown, it is unmeasurable and therefore unknowable to boot...

...which is why I concern myself with more practical matters, like invalidating irrational belief systems that prevent people from accepting empirically-testable science (like gravity, evolution, pork and cows being delicious (), etc etc etc).

[The E]

That is the kind of rationalism I subscribe to as well. Just because we can disprove specific postulates of specific religions does not mean that we can do the same to the general concept of beings more powerful than ourselves (see also: Simulation Argument).

[Luis Dias]

I don't think the God question is "unanswerable" due to the Heisenberg Principle. As far as I have thought about that one, I also have the suspicion that the question is unanswerable, but due to Humean principles. I think Hume here is still applicable in some corrected form. Take this rationale:

Hume's main argument concerning miracles is the following. Miracles by definition are singular events that differ from the established Laws of Nature. The Laws of Nature are codified as a result of past experiences. Therefore a miracle is a violation of all prior experience and thus incapable on this basis of reasonable belief. However the probability that something has occurred in contradiction of all past experience should always be judged to be less than the probability that either my senses have deceived me or the person recounting the miraculous occurrence is lying or mistaken, all of which I have past experience of.

This has some problems. For instance, my past experience may be lacking (obviously it is), or some events might be just unique but true.

However, what counts is the attitude, which I think is what works. While the Agnostic may be well too worried about the problems I've enunciated, in sheer practical matter, both would agree whenever anyone presented evidence of a God that it is much more probable for it to be either an empirical error, an hallucination, bad interpretation of natural phenomena, or just a state of mental lunacy. Behaviorally speaking, both would never accept any concrete evidence of a God, rendering the question unanswerable.

But you see, there's always this nagging thought occurring in my head that I should just flatly deny / reject any unfalsifiable  / unanswerable question. So perhaps to me the agnostic / atheist issue is not one of "technicalities" but of social forms. I argue that we (4 so far) are all atheists in that sense.

[Flak]

There are different kinds of Agnostics even. First is that they don't care if God or any other deities exist. Unlike Atheist, they don't deny the possibility of a higher being or a creator or some sort. Another is the more active kind, they probably have studied different religions but in the end, they can't decide for themselves and 'take the third option' but they somehow try to follow what they accept from each religion they know instead of becoming atheist.

Take note that those so-called 'Free Thinkers' can be Agnostics, but can also be Deists. Deists believe that God created the universe, but has abandoned what was created or otherwise dead in that sense. Afterall, Agnosticism are even more widely varied than Atheism is.

[The Dagger]

The earlier debate turned sower when people started naming things differently.
To me* agnosticism and atheism respond different questions:
1) Is there enough data to have a saying?
N: Agnostic
Y:  The rest (theists and antitheists)
2) Are you sure that God exists?
Y:  Theist
N: Atheist (and agnostics)
3) Are you sure that God doesn't exist?
Y: Explicit atheist (antitheist).
N: Implicit atheist (and agnostics)
*If you don't agree, fine, I won't impose my definitions nor change them unless there's a very good reason so let's no make a big issue of it
Although, I do agree that the behavioural difference between implicit and explicit atheist and agnostics is minimal.
 
Now, answering your questions, by definition God is transcendent and hence empirically unprovable. You don't even need Schrödinger's principle for that.
Also, making a philosophical interpretation of a physical principle is something I particularly don't like. People may say that Heissenberg's principle shows that there is no external reality, but I see it more like "You can't use the wave function of a particle to determine the position and momentum of a wave-particle with a precision over this limit." As stated, the principle may be the reflection of a deeper truth of existence (that nothing is certain) but I may also be that the probabilistic approach used by Schrödinger is limited.
And I still disagree with positive evidence. The only thing that can be proven is that something is false and everything is open to debate until then.

Finally it all comes down to what Asimov said, you have to make a choice (a leap of faith if you will). I see no difference between any of the options in that regard.

[Luis Dias]

I disagree with your definition of anti-theist. To me, an AT is someone that rails against theism, someone who considers theism to be an evil belief, someone who thinks theism is "bad for everyone and anyone".

[swashmebuckle]

That is the kind of rationalism I subscribe to as well. Just because we can disprove specific postulates of specific religions does not mean that we can do the same to the general concept of beings more powerful than ourselves (see also: Simulation Argument).

QFT. Sorry if I missed this earlier, but what are the criteria for godhood here? Is it just creating our universe? God/s can start looking perfectly plausible and even likely to appear if you don't insist that they be invisible omnipotent omnipresent etc.

[Luis Dias]

That is the kind of rationalism I subscribe to as well. Just because we can disprove specific postulates of specific religions does not mean that we can do the same to the general concept of beings more powerful than ourselves (see also: Simulation Argument).

QFT. Sorry if I missed this earlier, but what are the criteria for godhood here? Is it just creating our universe? God/s can start looking perfectly plausible and even likely to appear if you don't insist that they be invisible omnipotent omnipresent etc.

I've stated in the other thread the following rationale: I'm using mostly something akin to the Christian God. I could be using other kinds of "Gods", but this begins the ignosticism problem: we begin having a problem of semantics itself. "God" can be defined pretty much as anything and nothing, with an infinite set of combined characteristics.

That is by itself an interesting philosophical (logical, etc.) debate, but one which I've skipped here. When people call themselves atheists they are not doing in defiance of a God that some lone philosopher has figured out in his bed, but whithin the context of a world dominated by the three big monotheistic religions (and some polytheistic ones too). When I say I'm an atheist in my world, everyone understands I'm not denying the Spaghetti Monster, but rather Yaweh and Allah primarily.


So I understand these concerns, but I regard them ultimately as the philosophical equivalent to "concern trolling". I know you didn't mean it this way, but can you see where I am going at?

[Mongoose]

Honestly I think MP-Ryan's view of agnosticism can be summed up rather succinctly.

[Luis Dias]

I did compare him to the president of the Hitchhiker's Guide universe, that's a close enough clone .

ZAPHOD BEEBLEBROX:  Er, man, like what's your name?

MAN:       I don't know. Why, do you think I ought to have one? It seems odd to give a bundle of vague sensory perceptions a name.

ZARNIWOOP:  Listen. We must ask you some questions.

MAN:    All right. You can sing to my cat if you like.

ARTHUR DENT:  Would he like that?

MAN:   You'd better ask him that.

ZARNIWOOP:  How long have you been ruling the Universe?

MAN:   Ah, this is a question about the past is it?

ZARNIWOOP:  Yes.

MAN:    How can I tell that the past isn't a fiction designed to account for the discrepancy between my immediate physical sensations and my state of mind?

ZARNIWOOP:  Do you answer all questions like this?

MAN:    I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things. More I cannot say.

. . . .

ZARNIWOOP:     No. Listen. People come to you, yes?

MAN:  I think so.

ZARNIWOOP:    And they ask you to take decisions—about wars, about economies, about people, about everything going on out there in the Universe?

MAN:    I only decide about my Universe. My Universe is what happens to my eyes and ears. Anything else is surmise and hearsay. For all I know, these people may not exist. You may not exist. I say what it occurs to me to say.

ZARNIWOOP:  But don't you see? What you decide affects the fate of millions of people.

MAN:    I don't know them, I've never met them. They only exist in words I think I hear. The men who come say to me, say, so and so wants to declare what we call a war. These are the facts, what do you think? And I say. Sometimes it's a smaller thing. . . .

. . . .

MAN:    But it's folly to say you know what is happening to other people. Only they know. If they exist.

ZARNIWOOP:  Do you think they do?

MAN:    I have no opinion. How can I have?

ZARNIWOOP:  I have.

MAN:   So you say—or so I hear you say.

. . . .

ZARNIWOOP:  But don't you see that people live or die on your word?

MAN:    It's nothing to do with me, I am not involved with people. The Lord knows I am not a cruel man.

ZARNIWOOP:    Ah! You say . . . the Lord! You believe in . . .

MAN:    My cat. I call him the Lord. I am kind to him.

ZARNIWOOP:  All right. How do you know he exists? How do you know he knows you to be kind, or enjoys what you think of as your kindness?

MAN:    I don't. I have no idea. It merely pleases me to behave in a certain way to what appears to be a cat. What else do you do? Please I am tired.

[Bobboau]

On a more practical level, do I accept the notion of a Christian God who created the Earth is seven days?  Of course not.  But rejecting specific religious positions, myths, or beliefs does not mean I reject the fundamental premise that deities exist, because I cannot substantiate that claim, nor can I substantiate the opposite claim.

rejection of a position is not equivelent to acceptance of it's opposite. rejecting beleife in the exsistance of deities does not automatically result in beleife in the non-exsistence of deities.

further as i mentioned before it is not a two or three or n group distinction, it is a one group distinction. the question is, are you in that one group or not? not are you in some other group that is the polar opposite.

[AtomicClucker]

The earlier debate turned sower when people started naming things differently.
To me* agnosticism and atheism respond different questions:
1) Is there enough data to have a saying?
N: Agnostic
Y:  The rest (theists and antitheists)
2) Are you sure that God exists?
Y:  Theist
N: Atheist (and agnostics)
3) Are you sure that God doesn't exist?
Y: Explicit atheist (antitheist).
N: Implicit atheist (and agnostics)
*If you don't agree, fine, I won't impose my definitions nor change them unless there's a very good reason so let's no make a big issue of it
Although, I do agree that the behavioural difference between implicit and explicit atheist and agnostics is minimal.
 
Now, answering your questions, by definition God is transcendent and hence empirically unprovable. You don't even need Schrödinger's principle for that.
Also, making a philosophical interpretation of a physical principle is something I particularly don't like. People may say that Heissenberg's principle shows that there is no external reality, but I see it more like "You can't use the wave function of a particle to determine the position and momentum of a wave-particle with a precision over this limit." As stated, the principle may be the reflection of a deeper truth of existence (that nothing is certain) but I may also be that the probabilistic approach used by Schrödinger is limited.
And I still disagree with positive evidence. The only thing that can be proven is that something is false and everything is open to debate until then.

Finally it all comes down to what Asimov said, you have to make a choice (a leap of faith if you will). I see no difference between any of the options in that regard.

Same stuff I used to ramble about: but it comes down to this: vagueness and paradoxes. Positivist thinkers attempted to argue that everything could be broken down into black and white values (truthfully this actually a shallow interpretation, but I relent from messing it up so peeps can Wikipedia it). Godel shattered this attempt at breaking down information by showing math inherited the problem of vagueness by operating as a language. Language is intrinsically vague, and uses a meta-language to confirm itself, ie Truth. Math, though operating by Logic (ie Complete and Sound), is still a language and inherits linguist vagueness.

Any discussions on whether pink unicorns exist or not falls into a similar rut: truthfulness is a vicious infinite circle, what got me interested is "why" we believe, and "what'" mechanisms were employed. Then my personal rationalization of Atheism exploded when I hit the conclusion that arguing about belief is squarely a philosophical matter. Not to say science doesn't have a part, but science in itself is a tool and not belief and philosophy is the better tool than science to discuss these issues. Henceforth why I've sided with many of the agnostics and detractors of certain strains of Atheism: we fail to discuss the underpinnings of what constitutes belief, and it is actively discouraged because many atheists don't have a good grasp of linguistics and paradoxical studies especially when much of it can only ride upon a framework built of contextual understanding.

[MP-Ryan]

rejection of a position is not equivelent to acceptance of it's opposite. rejecting beleife in the exsistance of deities does not automatically result in beleife in the non-exsistence of deities.

Correct; however, few self-described atheists will say that they reject belief in the existence belief in deities, yet simultaneously accept belief in the existence of deities.  Atheists always lean one way:  there are no gods.  Theists always lean one way:  there are gods.  Agnostics don't lean in any direction:  there may be gods and there simultaneously may not be gods.

I am pretty sure that none of those arguing that atheism and agnosticism are in fact the same thing can say they accept the possibility that gods exist and afford it roughly equal status as the possibility that gods do not exist, which is precisely the position of agnosticism.

further as i mentioned before it is not a two or three or n group distinction, it is a one group distinction. the question is, are you in that one group or not? not are you in some other group that is the polar opposite.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Luis Dias]

Henceforth why I've sided with many of the agnostics and detractors of certain strains of Atheism: we fail to discuss the underpinnings of what constitutes belief, and it is actively discouraged because many atheists don't have a good grasp of linguistics and paradoxical studies especially when much of it can only ride upon a framework built of contextual understanding.

Yeah but that's quite the perpendicular to the point we were discussing. No doubt some people will have a more narrow view of any given subject. If that's an argument, it's an argument for anything, which is to say for nothing at all.

[Luis Dias]

I am pretty sure that none of those arguing that atheism and agnosticism are in fact the same thing can say they accept the possibility that gods exist and afford it roughly equal status as the possibility that gods do not exist, which is precisely the position of agnosticism.

So contrary to the odds posted back in the other thread (most probably not by you), you do then view the answer to that question as a 50/50 split? Before you say you don't know the odds, you can't possibly know the odds, notice how you yourself said the opposite so I hope you don't say that. Think Bayesian on this one, think how would you gamble. You sayin' you bet 50/50?

[swashmebuckle]

That is the kind of rationalism I subscribe to as well. Just because we can disprove specific postulates of specific religions does not mean that we can do the same to the general concept of beings more powerful than ourselves (see also: Simulation Argument).

QFT. Sorry if I missed this earlier, but what are the criteria for godhood here? Is it just creating our universe? God/s can start looking perfectly plausible and even likely to appear if you don't insist that they be invisible omnipotent omnipresent etc.

I've stated in the other thread the following rationale: I'm using mostly something akin to the Christian God. I could be using other kinds of "Gods", but this begins the ignosticism problem: we begin having a problem of semantics itself. "God" can be defined pretty much as anything and nothing, with an infinite set of combined characteristics.

That is by itself an interesting philosophical (logical, etc.) debate, but one which I've skipped here. When people call themselves atheists they are not doing in defiance of a God that some lone philosopher has figured out in his bed, but whithin the context of a world dominated by the three big monotheistic religions (and some polytheistic ones too). When I say I'm an atheist in my world, everyone understands I'm not denying the Spaghetti Monster, but rather Yaweh and Allah primarily.


So I understand these concerns, but I regard them ultimately as the philosophical equivalent to "concern trolling". I know you didn't mean it this way, but can you see where I am going at?

So you are saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that you disagree with all of the specific religions that Humanity has come up with, but agree that something that for all intents and purposes is a god to us really might exist and have created the universe, though you assign it a low probability? That is not the position I normally associate with atheism, but hell if I'm gonna tell someone else what they can or can't call themselves

[Luis Dias]

You might not associate it with atheism, but that's pretty much what atheism is in practice. Read the hard strident voices about it. If you ask them in this a lot more "open" philosophical sense, they will pretty much admit quite a lot of possibilities. The problems arise then that these possibilities are just unpreachable by men, and that's the main point.

Watch this from 18:18 for instance (just for a few minutes, dontcha worry):

e: Specially Hitchens on 46:20 to 49:00. Now don't go confusing Hitchens for an "agnostic" there.

[MP-Ryan]

I am pretty sure that none of those arguing that atheism and agnosticism are in fact the same thing can say they accept the possibility that gods exist and afford it roughly equal status as the possibility that gods do not exist, which is precisely the position of agnosticism.

So contrary to the odds posted back in the other thread (most probably not by you), you do then view the answer to that question as a 50/50 split? Before you say you don't know the odds, you can't possibly know the odds, notice how you yourself said the opposite so I hope you don't say that. Think Bayesian on this one, think how would you gamble. You sayin' you bet 50/50?

No.  I don't bet at all.  You'll note I said "afford it equal status" and not "afford it equal probability."  The wording choice is intentional.

I'm curious why you fellows seem to all want to lump my position with yours.  Trust me, I am neither rich, nor famous, nor particularly above-average in looks, and while my wife seems to enjoy it I don't know that I'm particularly more skilled in the bedroom than the average man.... WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME! =)