Agnosticism, Atheism, Theism...

[Shwa]

So if we grant unicorns pseudo or fictional reality we must also grant religion fictional reality as well, but that is not what people have faith in.

But are you that certain about what people have faith in?

It seems to me that faith is a response to the anagogic effect, both of which are certainly not fictional. We can argue first causes, but it will degenerate into the sort of 'quality of question' argument that Michael Hardner has pointed out, or a point of terms that TimG is proposing. But the faithful adhere to a set of actions, behaviours or thinking patterns - all "man made" - that are intended to produce the anagogic effect whether it is 'divine' inspiration or a simple feeling of social security. The anagogy is the 'proof' of their faith (or the proof their faith requires to continue it) and it is indeed very real. It has produced an overwhelming body of evidence in testament to its reality.

I am not talking only about religion, but all creative human endeavours although religion seems to be the most sophisticated of these anagogic effect producing activities at this time.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Shwa

[ToadBrother]

But every atheist I've ever heard, whether they are unhelpfully insulting or not, are arguing against a personified god, and never against a "plane of energy" or something.

That's simply not true. Most atheists will argue against the Deist ideas and even more nebulous notions (if that's possible) of what God is.

[eyeball]

But every atheist I've ever heard, whether they are unhelpfully insulting or not, are arguing against a personified god, and never against a "plane of energy" or something.

I don't know, the sheer amount of blind supernaturalism that seems to still exist in people's thoughts and actions and the amount of stuff people are willing to believe in is scary. Even "good luck" seems an innocent enough thing to wish on someone unless you're wishing it on someone who's just about given themselves an aneurysm trying to find a lost lucky gremlin before heading out to the bingo hall.

You wouldn't believe how many bugaboos there are that many fishermen have to attend to before heading out to sea and pity the poor uninitiated deckhand who opens a can of milk upside down.

[bloodyminded]

That's simply not true. Most atheists will argue against the Deist ideas and even more nebulous notions (if that's possible) of what God is.

But there are two rather distinct arguments. The argument against "Deist ideas and...nebulous notions" of God are arguments for evidence; they're fruitless, no doubt, but they're not unreasonable.

The arguments against the Man in the sky are different, and are the ones that atheists get most exercised about. Understandably, in my view.

At any rate, since I'm not part of any atheist club with some overarching agenda, I personally don't argue against the notion of some ill-derfined, nebulous force we call "god" for no other reason than convenience. I'm more than happy to leave people alone with their beliefs.

However, when people start insisting upon the "truth" of such wavery, undefineable suppositions, it is they who are on the attack...not those who dispute them.

I'm afraid we're still in thrall to a mass delusion in which religious sensibilities are somehow more important than irreligious ones.

And I see no good reason for this. At all.

I'm certainly not going to mock some woman who opines that her dead child has gone to Heaven to be with God; it's cruel, and nothing good can come of it. Leave her alone, I say.

But that some people are actively offended (or derisive) about atheism itself, about the "moral relativists" who comprise the atheist body...well, that's their fault. If they're offended, that's not my problem, and I certainly won't "respect their beliefs" while they consider me some sort of degenerate.

I will say that I think Hitchens and Dawkins are combative and insulting in a way that might speak to their own personal demons, at least as much as some vaunted quest for "truth." But since I'm not a spokesperson for some "movement" called "atheism," I'm no more responsible for their behaviour than is Pat Robertson.

[eyeball]

I'm afraid we're still in thrall to a mass delusion in which religious sensibilities are somehow more important than irreligious ones.

And I see no good reason for this. At all.

I can't imagine it bodes well for the environment given how many people are more fixated on the afterworld than the world they're living in.

[MightyAC]

But are you that certain about what people have faith in?

It seems to me that faith is a response to the anagogic effect, both of which are certainly not fictional. We can argue first causes, but it will degenerate into the sort of 'quality of question' argument that Michael Hardner has pointed out, or a point of terms that TimG is proposing. But the faithful adhere to a set of actions, behaviours or thinking patterns - all "man made" - that are intended to produce the anagogic effect whether it is 'divine' inspiration or a simple feeling of social security. The anagogy is the 'proof' of their faith (or the proof their faith requires to continue it) and it is indeed very real. It has produced an overwhelming body of evidence in testament to its reality.

I am not talking only about religion, but all creative human endeavours although religion seems to be the most sophisticated of these anagogic effect producing activities at this time.

I see the term anagogy used in different ways. I assume by anagogic effect you are referring to a uplifting or spiritual feeling that can be produced in certain situations.

Based on that assumption I think your opinion that the anagogic effect of ritual, actions and behaviours creates faith is backwards. I would argue that this effect is not felt by the many religious folk, just putting in time and going through the motions. I have no doubt that the truly faithful can experience this effect. However, like the placebo effect I don't think people actually have faith without belief in a real god in the first place.

Anyway, a real feeling produced by real rituals does not make the underlying mythology real or true.

[Shwa]

I see the term anagogy used in different ways. I assume by anagogic effect you are referring to a uplifting or spiritual feeling that can be produced in certain situations.

Based on that assumption I think your opinion that the anagogic effect of ritual, actions and behaviours creates faith is backwards. I would argue that this effect is not felt by the many religious folk, just putting in time and going through the motions. I have no doubt that the truly faithful can experience this effect. However, like the placebo effect I don't think people actually have faith without belief in a real god in the first place.

Anyway, a real feeling produced by real rituals does not make the underlying mythology real or true.

I can assure you that if heroin had no physiological and emotional effects, there would be no heroin addiction. Heroin addicts keep shooting up because they have faith that the effects will be there when they go through the ritual of shooting up. William James makes an interesting use of this type of analogy in 'Varieties of Religious Experience' when he compares the yearnings for that anagogic 'spiritual' effect being relieved through the use of alcohol aka 'spirits.'

So I would liken the anagogic affect to the sensational aspect of any mind altering substance and I would also extend that effect to include an interpretation of any literature or art form, including music.

Now logically explain to an active heroin addict that the object of their faith is incorrect, wrong, unreal or cannot be disproven. Use unicornism to illustrate your point. See if they readily abandon their smack for the effects of your correct and true logic. I don't think they would do you?

Which leads us back to the modern masses of faithful who, facing a life of uncertainty, nothingness, fear and loathing, well, as Roger Waters sang:

Far away across the field

The tolling of the iron bell

Calls the faithful to their knees

To hear the softly spoken magic spells.

In Edit:

Anyway, a real feeling produced by real rituals does not make the underlying mythology real or true.

You are absolutely correct. But in the grand scheme of things whether the objects of the myth are true or not is irrelevant. It is not such a stretch to suspend belief to involve ourselves in a good drama or mystery, especially when we find that involvement pleasurable, meaningful or comforting.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Shwa

[Michael Hardner]

But every atheist I've ever heard, whether they are unhelpfully insulting or not, are arguing against a personified god, and never against a "plane of energy" or something.

Not me. I've seen them arguing against anything beyond the universe.

[Michael Hardner]

Not me. I've seen them arguing against anything beyond the universe.

Seen ? Ha.... I have 'seen' it on the internet... i.e. read posts...

[bloodyminded]

Seen ? Ha.... I have 'seen' it on the internet... i.e. read posts...

Fair enough!

At any rate, atheism vs. agnosticism is not the simple matter that so many (myself included) have tried to navigate.

Perhaps Bertrand Russell's little treatise here is the gold standard:

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

I would add to this the more nebulous, ill-defined notions of "god." It's not that they can't be true; it's that I see no good reason, at the moment, to suppose that they are.

Some people call this "weak atheism." But if others prefer the term "agnostic," well, that's ok too.

I'm basically an agnostic on the issue of the distinction itself.

Edited July 10, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Michael Hardner]

I'm basically an agnostic on the issue of the distinction itelf.

Or maybe I'll cross that bridge (to Hades) when I come to it.

[dre]

Not me. I've seen them arguing against anything beyond the universe.

That view makes no sense to me, and it doesnt fit the defination of atheist either.

[WIP]

Fair enough!

At any rate, atheism vs. agnosticism is not the simple matter that so many (myself included) have tried to navigate.

Perhaps Bertrand Russell's little treatise here is the gold standard:

I would add to this the more nebulous, ill-defined notions of "god." It's not that they can't be true; it's that I see no good reason, at the moment, to suppose that they are.

Some people call this "weak atheism." But if others prefer the term "agnostic," well, that's ok too.

I'm basically an agnostic on the issue of the distinction itself.

I think someone needs to point out here that the definitions of atheism and agnosticism that are being bandied about in atheist and humanist circles (atheism is belief-based, agnosticism is knowledge-based), are not universally accepted. If you check out some of the work of self-proclaimed agnosticism advocate Mark Vernon you can see that there are some educated observers who feel that militant atheists like Richard Dawkins, have hijacked the term agnostic for the purpose of bumping up the perceived numbers of atheists. Vernon takes his understanding of agnosticism from the man who coined the term - Thomas Huxley; pointing out that Huxley was well aware of what atheists believed and yet he still did not feel the term suitably applied to him.

Another problem I have with Dawkins speak is that he uses archaic definitions and understanding of how the mind functions when he makes these distinctions between belief and knowledge. The picture of how we form beliefs and decide what is truth needs to be updated by findings in modern developmental psychology. I've read a couple of books in the past year by developmental psychologist - Bruce Hood which give us a picture of how the brain starts creating a conscious picture of the world in childhood that stays with us throughout our lives, and skews our attempts to reason our way towards knowledge; and neurologist -Robert Burton who is trying to unlock the neurochemical signals that generate a "reward sensation," which we interpret as gaining knowledge. Burton demonstrates that certainty is a feeling that varies wildly in how accurately it reflects factual evidence.

So keeping these things in mind, along with the findings of other researchers, what the hell does an evangelical atheist like Dawkins mean when he says 'I believe that there is no God' but 'I don't have enough evidence to know for certain?' Dawkins may just as well stick to the belief statement and not bother claiming to also have an unbiased statement of knowledge because such things do not really exist. He should leave the term - agnostic to the people like Vernon, who say they remain undecided on whether or not there is an intelligent creator of our world.

[bloodyminded]

I think someone needs to point out here that the definitions of atheism and agnosticism that are being bandied about in atheist and humanist circles (atheism is belief-based, agnosticism is knowledge-based), are not universally accepted. If you check out some of the work of self-proclaimed agnosticism advocate Mark Vernon you can see that there are some educated observers who feel that militant atheists like Richard Dawkins, have hijacked the term agnostic for the purpose of bumping up the perceived numbers of atheists. Vernon takes his understanding of agnosticism from the man who coined the term - Thomas Huxley; pointing out that Huxley was well aware of what atheists believed and yet he still did not feel the term suitably applied to him.

Another problem I have with Dawkins speak is that he uses archaic definitions and understanding of how the mind functions when he makes these distinctions between belief and knowledge. The picture of how we form beliefs and decide what is truth needs to be updated by findings in modern developmental psychology. I've read a couple of books in the past year by developmental psychologist - Bruce Hood which give us a picture of how the brain starts creating a conscious picture of the world in childhood that stays with us throughout our lives, and skews our attempts to reason our way towards knowledge; and neurologist -Robert Burton who is trying to unlock the neurochemical signals that generate a "reward sensation," which we interpret as gaining knowledge. Burton demonstrates that certainty is a feeling that varies wildly in how accurately it reflects factual evidence.

So keeping these things in mind, along with the findings of other researchers, what the hell does an evangelical atheist like Dawkins mean when he says 'I believe that there is no God' but 'I don't have enough evidence to know for certain?' Dawkins may just as well stick to the belief statement and not bother claiming to also have an unbiased statement of knowledge because such things do not really exist. He should leave the term - agnostic to the people like Vernon, who say they remain undecided on whether or not there is an intelligent creator of our world.

I think these are all good points. But just to clarify (since I'm confused as to whether or not you were confused about my source): Ii wasn't talking about Dawkins, but about Bertrand Russell...in my view, a far more sober, nuanced, and self-aware thinker on these matters.

If I read him correctly, he says that he is technically an agnostic on grand, unknowable matters about the existence of "god" in its most ethereal and ill-defined form; but that the term "atheist" will do well enough for conversation's sake in most discussions of god(s), because he holds no truck with narrated religions.

[WIP]

I think these are all good points. But just to clarify (since I'm confused as to whether or not you were confused about my source): Ii wasn't talking about Dawkins, but about Bertrand Russell...in my view, a far more sober, nuanced, and self-aware thinker on these matters.

I read "Why I Am Not A Christian" many years ago, but these days, the Dawkins interpretation of atheism and agnosticism seems to be universal.

If I read him correctly, he says that he is technically an agnostic on grand, unknowable matters about the existence of "god" in its most ethereal and ill-defined form; but that the term "atheist" will do well enough for conversation's sake in most discussions of god(s), because he holds no truck with narrated religions.

Right. Bertrand Russell was too careful a philosopher to make a sharp distinction between belief and knowledge that Dawkins's fans are using now. Russell said somewhere that he 'was an atheistically-inclined agnostic'.

Previously, I mentioned some recent studies of the mind because the new picture seems to be showing that we are hopelessly biased by our pre-existing beliefs. It would be a good reason to always keep the door open a little in case we're wrong.

On many issues, we have no choice other than to stake out a position, because the alternative is to be frozen in indecision; but why the so-called new atheists feel that it is important to stake out firm positions on huge, mostly undiscovered issues like 'how the universe came to be' is beyond me.

[bloodyminded]

I read "Why I Am Not A Christian" many years ago, but these days, the Dawkins interpretation of atheism and agnosticism seems to be universal.

Right. Bertrand Russell was too careful a philosopher to make a sharp distinction between belief and knowledge that Dawkins's fans are using now. Russell said somewhere that he 'was an atheistically-inclined agnostic'.

Previously, I mentioned some recent studies of the mind because the new picture seems to be showing that we are hopelessly biased by our pre-existing beliefs. It would be a good reason to always keep the door open a little in case we're wrong.

On many issues, we have no choice other than to stake out a position, because the alternative is to be frozen in indecision; but why the so-called new atheists feel that it is important to stake out firm positions on huge, mostly undiscovered issues like 'how the universe came to be' is beyond me.

I couldn't agree more. And it's interesting that contemporary mind research agrees with old saws like "the only thing I truly know is that I know nothing," and so on (arguably slight exaggerations, but the impetus, the basic idea is solid gold).

I think it was you who discussed on a different post that the new research should suggest a different way of thinking about criminal behaviour, too. Not a comfortable subject for many poeple, because it goes to the heart of "responsibility" and "choice" and "will" and other important matters.

And again, the new research correlates quite exactly with the felt, if difficult to articulate, beliefs of those who work on behalf of prisoners and ex-cons.

So in many ways, the research is in agreement with long-held moral beliefs of compassionate individuals.

Which I find fascinating. Perhaps the saying (is it Buddhist?) "Compassion is Wisdom" has an objective basis to it.

[jbg]

I would add to this the more nebulous, ill-defined notions of "god." It's not that they can't be true; it's that I see no good reason, at the moment, to suppose that they are.

Some people call this "weak atheism." But if others prefer the term "agnostic," well, that's ok too.

I'm basically an agnostic on the issue of the distinction itself.

I believe that the fact that the universe, in particular the earth, has form or pattern and is not consigned to endless entropy is proof that G-d exists. I do not believe that G-d directs most human affairs. G-d gave man alone among animals the power to make moral choices. If we screw up it's our fault, not G-d's.

[bloodyminded]

I believe that the fact that the universe, in particular the earth, has form or pattern and is not consigned to endless entropy is proof that G-d exists. I do not believe that G-d directs most human affairs. G-d gave man alone among animals the power to make moral choices. If we screw up it's our fault, not G-d's.

If I believed in God, I would likely be aligned with the common view that you've stated in your last two sentences.

I do not, however, believe that your initial observation constitutes "proof" of God's existence.

[MightyAC]

I believe that the fact that the universe, in particular the earth, has form or pattern and is not consigned to endless entropy is proof that G-d exists. I do not believe that G-d directs most human affairs. G-d gave man alone among animals the power to make moral choices. If we screw up it's our fault, not G-d's.

I know several people that resort to god belief when faced with the staggering number of phenomenon that had to work out just right in order for us to exist. I can never understand how they can stop there though. How can you not question what created the creator?

[GostHacked]

How can you not question what created the creator?

I've asked that question many times. The most popular answer I got was that god was always there. I know it does not help, but there you go.

[bush_cheney2004]

I've asked that question many times. The most popular answer I got was that god was always there. I know it does not help, but there you go.

Because that is the logical answer irrespective of an actual "God". A simple exercise in logic based on the definition of "nothing" quickly puts to bed any fuss about creating the creator (or universe):

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%20universe%20from.htm

In short, absolute nothing would mean that something was created from nothing, a logical impossibility. Hence, there always must have been "something".

Edited July 12, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest TrueMetis]

I've asked that question many times. The most popular answer I got was that god was always there. I know it does not help, but there you go.

Biggest copout ever.

[WIP]

I believe that the fact that the universe, in particular the earth, has form or pattern and is not consigned to endless entropy is proof that G-d exists.

The fact that we don't know how our universe came to be, only demonstrates we lack of knowledge of the universe, not proof that there was a supernatural agent responsible for creating it.

My skepticism of a supernatural cause comes from some discoveries that indicate our solar system is a fluke in what is likely a barren, lifeless galaxy.

In brief, most of the mass of the Milky Way Galaxy is too close to the center which emits lethal doses of gamma rays, that would kill off any start to life that might form. A little further out and there are no heavy elements that a solar system would need to form planets. Our solar system was almost certain formed closer to the Galactic center and then kicked out for some reason to its present location, which is just at the right place to remain in a void between radioactive gaseous galactic arms.

These kind of lucky coincidences don't strike me as evidence for fine tuning, but instead a more likely example of one of the very few solar systems that beat the odds against being able to be suitable for the formation of life. And the fact that our universe is so ridiculously huge and wasteful, doesn't strike me as the kind of place an intelligent creator would go about making a home for living creatures.

[WIP]

Because that is the logical answer irrespective of an actual "God". A simple exercise in logic based on the definition of "nothing" quickly puts to bed any fuss about creating the creator (or universe):

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%20universe%20from.htm

In short, absolute nothing would mean that something was created from nothing, a logical impossibility. Hence, there always must have been "something".

Don't tell me...another guy who's figure it all out! The problem is still incomplete knowledge. This guy's whole cosmic plan starts with the premise that the Big Bang was a creation event; and there are a growing number of modern physicists who do not believe the Big Bang was the beginning of time. Physicists working with unified theory attempts -- String Theory and a popular alternative -- Quantum Loop Gravity, both conclude that the Big Bang was not a singularity, and that leads to the inevitable conclusion that our universe is not unique, but one of an incalculable number of universes.

His other scheme -- that our consciousness can be downloaded on future advanced computers is fantasy. It seems pretty clear from discoveries in neuroscience that the mind is created by brain function. Take away that physical brain and you may be able to produce a computer simulation of it, but it will never be the original copy.

The other problem he has in talking about immortality, is that our universe is not immortal! It is expanding at an accelerating rate of speed, and will either die a heat death billions of years in the future, or disintegrate when the space-time fabric rips apart at an earlier event. Either way, the end of the universe will end everything that is contained within.

[MightyAC]

So some who are unsatisfied with our current knowledge of our own universe need to resort to god belief to fill in the gaps. They believe that a god must have created the universe because the universe is something and something cannot come from nothing. Then when faced with with questions about the origins of the creator are somehow satisfied with the idea that the creator was always there. Isn't it easier to accept that we currently do not completely understand the origins of our universe than to believe a super complex creator sprang from nothing and created the universe?