Ingjald said:
But here are also more than one type of agnoticism; there are those who simply say "we don't know if there is a god", and there are those who hold the postition that such knowledge is inherently unknowable. Both are called agnosticism. While a person asserting that "there is no god" would certainly be called atheist, that isn't to say that everyone caling themselves atheist must necessarily agree with such a certain claim when "I don't believe there is a god" is still an atheist position.
I'd posit that the insistence that we "can't know" something is an assertion in and of itself that undermines the notion of agnosticism. But yes, that is a definition that exists for the term agnosticism. The creator of the term intended it to be a non-decision. That in the absence of evidence either way he needn't make a decision and left it at that. Whoever successfully added a subsection with a claim that the knowledge can never be known should have been laughed out of the university or whatever they were in. You don't go to a belief system built on not making claims on a lack of information and then tie a claim to it... haha.
The Atheist position by itself is the belief that there is no God. Agnostic Atheism is more what you're going for if you don't believe in God but don't know whether or not he exists so you don't specifically not believe in Him anyways.
But I'll pose this question to you. What would you say the difference is between Agnostic Atheism and Agnosticism with these definitions?
AronRa says that if you have even a little doubt about the existence of a deity you're an atheist. Not a position I agree with, but it goes to show that there are many degrees in either direction.
Why would AronRa hold any kind of legitimacy in redefining terms? The person is just a blogger, right? I'm not sure why you'd cite him as a reference at all. The term Atheism is set up in contrast with Theism. One believes God exists and the other believes He does not. There are separate terms for the places in between theism and atheism that have been developed and expressed over the years since then. His statement ignores distinct terms and includes doubt rather than overall stance. Mere doubt of a stance doesn't mean you don't hold that stance. If you doubt atheism does that make you a theist?
Dawkins has his "spectrum of theistic probability", a 7-point scale for measuring theism->atheism. 1 is "I know there is a god", and 7 is "I know there is no god" with the numbers inbetween representing varying strengths of conviction, and 4 representing agnosticism. Dawkins sets himself as a 6,9 on this scale. He has also noted that while plenty of theists assert themselves to be 1's, most atheists don't place themselves as 7's, because atheism arises from a lack of evidence, and one should be open to let evidence change one's mind.
Actually, I brought the scale up in this thread about two posts before you and I started talking:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.856955-Lucy-Goosey?page=3#21231612
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
My only criticism of Dawkin's scale is that he limits the possibilities of Theism here. As stated, you don't have to believe that God is still active in creation to believe that someone created this. You don't necessarily have to believe in a creator AND a personal deity. So every step above 3 would rule out a person who believes that the Universe was created but doesn't have anything to say about whether or not He's still there.
Either way, you see here that Dawkins agrees that the term Atheist is the absolute belief that there is no God and that he agrees that a strictly defined atheism is indeed an actual belief system. Not that I think He doesn't exist, but that I "KNOW" He doesn't exist.
Fair enough. Though while probability does not prove anything per se, it usually hints in the right direction. Especially considering some of the things we know about the natural world, the assertion that an intelligent mind is not behind it all should not really be a controversial one, but I digress.
Well, both sides are controversial. Atheism is controversial because people of faith don't like having their faith questioned and Theism is controversial because Atheists have specific faiths and specific ignorant loudmouths that are proponents of faith when technically, specific Faiths shouldn't even be part of the question. The question of Theism is a priori a discussion of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and whatever other faith one would discuss.
However, the notion that a universe in which every instance of a cause has an effect we're going to have some bit of controversy with the idea of something from nothing. I would say that atheism is less in line with science than the basic theism I've espoused for that reason. But unfortunately, it appears that science and religion have decided to pick up weapons and go to war with one another rather than taking what they can use from one another and going on their separate ways. As human beings, we should be of the mindset that if it's truth, then it's ours. Wherever it may be found. The existence of all matter and energy from nothing is magic. The creation of the universe by a being technologically advanced enough to create it is mere technology and perhaps not even technology at its peak.
You make it sound as though I'm just being contrary for the sake of it.
I thought you were having a bit of a go at me, it's true. Hard to know one way or the other thanks to the lack of tone in the form of text.
And within your metaphor, I gathered the evidence with an open mind for it to show either side to be correct, and acted accordingly. Not choosing a side in the face of evidence is also not helpful. ( yeah, I got the word "helpful" stuck in my head while writing this. For this instance of helpful, read "gets us nowhere".
Sure, I get that. I don't mean that an agnostic should wallow in their indecisiveness. They should try to gather more information but it's simply not there. The only evidence I can find is probability. That we aren't even all that advanced and yet we already create universes and movies about such things is a decent indication that we'll do the same thing some day is relatively convincing evidence to me that it's reasonable to assume someone created our universe as well. That our universe exists with stable enough principles to support life is also an intriguing point towards sentience since there's no reason that rational cooperating forces should exist in a random or accidental environment.
But, like the people at the fence, that's not as good as sparks on metal or pushing your idiot friend into the fence and seeing nothing happening to them. That's merely suspicion. At best, it is noticing some fried bugs on the ground to determine that the fence was at least on at some point but is not necessarily on now.
No idea who those characters are, but wikipedia shows me a superhero martian and a little lady who solves problems using cake. Insert Portal joke here. And don't worry about insulting me, I have a thick skin
. The truth is that I'm a bit Sheldon-esque when it comes to metaphors sometimes, but I usually do alright.
Thick skin or not, discussions take a very different tone when one side feels insulted and so I felt the need to preface my statement as a mild joke rather than an insult. It's difficult to communicate one's true intentions and tone via text and I've enjoyed my conversation with you enough to warrant giving it additional attention to not come across as some kind of ass.
you know electricity exists, and you know it is sometimes to be found in electric fences. You also know that pee is a functional conductor and that electricity is bad when applied directly to the penis. I'd say you're applying common sense with your risk/reward equation, rather than Pascals Wager, whose fallacy becomes especially grievous when applied to a theistic god. Does god really value insincere belief? Is it enough to say you believe? Even if there is a God, how do you know it's your God, and that he/she/it works like you think he/she/it does? How is a supposedly all-knowing and omnipresent being supposed to fall for this little tidbit of insincerity?
Again, pascals wager is not a fallacy. It is merely an evaluation of outcomes. The givens/outcomes entered into the wager are what may be fallacies. If the Christian God exists and you do not make an effort to believe, then yes, the risk is greater to live as if He does not exist. That's not a fallacy, that's true if the givens are to be accepted. It's just a logical construct based on an assumption. If Aunt Jemima exists as a vengeful God bent on destroying all who eat pancakes without her syrup then it is better for you to be safe and eat pancakes with the syrup than not to. Sure, as a given that is a true statement but when we question the given itself the point of the wager falls apart.
The only time that the wager is really relevant is if the cost of being safe rather than sorry is low enough to just go with it. That will always be a relative decision that would change according to the individual's valuation of the givens and any personal bias leaning them in either direction. There are appropriate situations to apply this logic. Times where you've got to decide if it's better for you to assume something than not to assume them. Like the electric fence or evaluating if you should drink directly from a water source that may or may not be contaminated. Originally, the result would be that it's better to try to find other water or purify the river water. Eventually, if no safe water source is found, the givens become drink the water and get sick or die of thirst and so the resulting behavior should change.
"If before is even acceptable" indeed. Like I said, intuitive is unlikely to be a defining trait of whatever happened at the beginning of time and space. And personally, I think the Prime Mover idea is a bit of a cop-out. It relies on cause and effect applying to everything, then extrapolates back and posits an effect without a cause just to get out of the infinite regress.
Well, the alternative is something from nothing or turtles all the way down. Both fly in the face of scientific principles but a being with technology sufficient to produce a universe doesn't break any rules. That he himself must be unmovable is not a given. He could likewise be a kid living in his parent's basement or he could be some super evolved creature able to manipulate and convert matter and energy readily. Perhaps there's even a third option which isn't matter or energy but is also interchangeable? We simply don't know, but it is more reasonable than something from nothing an the infinity loop. I know it sounds weird to apply Occam's razor here but that something caused it seems by far the simplest explanation for existence. It's just that people come from a bias where that automatically means Jesus or Angra Spentu or some specific deity upon which people ascribe magic to the term.
My intention was not to recommend the book, I meant to show that this is being looked at seriously. I tend to be very careful when making assertions around things with the word "Quantum" in its name, unless it's said by Deepak Chopra. Paraphrasing Feynman: If you think you understand Quantum Theory, you don't. Quantum Fields/Vaccuums being things or not notwithstanding, it at least has the merit of not presuming a conscious intelligence had to be behind it all.
I'm unsure what point you're trying to make. QFT is a complex subject, yes. But saying that something comes from something else is still hardly going to be something from nothing. The vacuums contain energy, for example. They are also a space by definition. This is the primary criticism of his book. That quantum fields are themselves part of our universe just like gravity. To say they played a pivotal in how our Universe exists today as we know it is hardly to prove a null scenario when they themselves exist and can even be created for experimentation. I'd think you'd agree with me on that point regardless of whether or not you agree with my other points. His title is misleading at best. At worst he is discussing a subject we know very little about as if us observing matter popping into existence necessarily means it is without it's own cause or underlying principle that we simply haven't figured out yet. The assertion that it comes from nothing and for no reason is him claiming a negative. Something that we have already mutually accepted is logically impossible to prove. That particles pop into and out of existence in a quantum vacuum does not mean it's without cause. We simply don't know why or if there is a why, we just know the properties of the vacuum such that it actually isn't even a vacuum (should have electromagnetic waves, for example). "It" in reference to a quantum vacuum isn't even correct as there are varieties of vacuums that pertain quantum fields. Is the author of "something from nothing" assuming that quantum fields aren't themselves part of our universe? That a field with electromagnetic waves isn't somehow a field with energy in it no matter how fleeting?
You don't have to understand QFT or QED to see the inconsistency there. It's like he's saying that a blanket assembled itself from nothing because of that loom in the corner of the room... You and I should both be able to say, but... LOOM... even if you and I don't agree on whether there was a person manning the loom to begin with.
"Universe in a Nutshell doesn't actually prove our universe is inside of the shell of a nut." Careful there, your inner Amelia Bedalia is showing.
Heh, I prefer Drax the Destroyer! "Nothing goes over my head, my reflexes are too fast, I would catch it."
Atheists "cry havoc" at people who worship their one book of infallible truth because they tend to be the most dangerous, most influential and there is more to disprove. Deism is a bit more slippery that way. Deists reject religious texts and authorities, and believe that the creator is a non-intervening entity that can be arrived at using reason. Deists also include pantheists and pandeists, which I'll adress under the next quote.
I think Ahteists group everything in as faith and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Speculation of sentient creation without any assumption of special gnosis/knowledge is every bit a scientific hypothesis as speculation of something from nothing.
Deism goes one step too far. They believe in a specific property of whoever created the universe. Chiefly that He does not necessarily interact. This is not necessarily true or untrue and so they've taken a step they shouldn't have. Take, for example, the notion that there is a far more interesting world in our universe upon which the creator lavishes all His attention. How about several more interesting worlds? The notion that the Creator doesn't interact because we haven't experienced it is just as silly as early beliefs that the Earth was the center of the universe because "we are sooooo important." Maybe we're just one of many and ours is in the way of a space highway that's about to be constructed? Maybe, as much as it may burn our butts, we're just not that important or interesting. So I consider deism to be part of theism. They just have far fewer central tenets than most of the other theist classifications. The only tenet being that God doesn't interact or peharps. Nothing to write a religion about but still a faith-based belief about the nature of a being they believe in but know nothing about even if they're correct.
So no, my statement is similar to deism but is not deism. I'm not even willing to rule out that God doesn't directly interact with our universe. I just strongly suspect it to be the case on the face value of things.
What I meant was that you can't just redefine God into existance: God is not "nature", god is not "love", god is neither "beauty" nor "the universe" nor "whiskey and a good book". What you are positing when you posit a creator is something that is at least sentient, and therefore able to have subjective opinion on things, possibly sapient, and therefore able to excersize judgement, and also necessarily powerful in some sense, enough so to set all this in motion, but also bumbling enough that its creation is objectively flawed and wasteful in multiple areas, and uncaring enough, for whatever reason, not to intervene to correct it.
My only conclusion is that the being would have to have the technology to create the universe. Bumbling or not would require knowing His intention for the thing. For example, I posited the idea that the universe is a sort of egg in which evolution of the life inside is but the development of a fetus. To explain, if life reaches a point where it can step outside of its own universe then it will have to have become like the creator somehow. Perhaps interacting would negatively influence getting the best results by side stepping evolution and allowing an unfit result to reach the caliber that the fittest had to arrive at.
That's purely something I'm presenting as an option. By no means is it a position. As an option, it would rule out a number of speculations you presented.
Additionally, you've also just successfully described numerous developers I've worked with. Capable of creating software but often lazy or or incapable of getting things exactly right. If we can assume that creating a universe is not unlike developing a digital universe, then it is not entirely unreasonable to think of God as a developer even if our universe isn't His universe's equivalent of a digital universe. Maybe he set certain rules for himself for additional entertainment or maybe he simply thinks differently than us.
Maybe sentient life is just an unintended consequence of what He created. Maybe he would care about us but the Universe is so vast that he hasn't found us yet or even thought to look for us. Maybe he has found us and decided to come back later when we're more evolved.
No idea. But there are soooo very many possible explanations that are perfectly reasonable.
Regarding the quote, it's from "the God Delusion", not a debate. Also, the second bit of Dawkins' quote was more relevant to my point than the first. I suspect Dawkins is operating under the assumption that ours is the universe in immediate need of explanation, and postulating another one that encapsulates it via Cthulhus computer is, once again, "unhelpful". Such ideas are fun in philosophy (you kind of postulate a more modern version of Plato's cave) and sci-fi, but are a bit too unsupported to be considered outside those contexts. Also, if this was a computer program, the programmer isn't very good. Furthermore, supposing the universe was created with the express reason to give rise to us is very anthropocentric, and also paints the programmer in a bad light considering how much of the rest of the universe had no bearing whatsoever on our existence or non-existance, and does nothing to explain the fact that we are on our way to collide with the Andromeda galaxy, which puts the end-result of this "simulation" at risk. Or is this what Yahtzee talked about in his Black & White review? Less about "beloved children" and more about "target practice"?
It's not necessarily unhelpful to discuss the premise of a creator anymore than it is unhelpful for Dawkins to discuss the premise of no creator. In fact, if there is a creator with the technology to create our universe then it would be of immense universe to figured out what that technology may be. If, for example, we are a program, then discovering how to interface with and interpret the coding language would be the single most valuable information that could ever be obtained in our universe. If you think about it, that's really the goal of science as we know it. To understand the rules and principles set in place that we may make the best use of them.
You're having a bit of trouble, or appear to be having trouble, taking the step from discussing this with me as a scientific hypothesis rather than a discussion on Jesus specifically. Accepting the reasonableness of sentient creation is a farcry from letting Jesus into your heart. It is important to separate your bias against faith which you very understandably have with your opinion on this matter. This has nothing to do with Faith at all.
But here we digress from the Prime Mover idea. If god exists because the principles of his universe created him, then he is not exempt, is he?
If you developed a universe in which all creatures come from pond scum, does that mean you too, as the developer of that universe, must have been created by pond scum? I don't mean to be repetitive but you're espousing a very common misconception. By definition, a creator precedes the creation or you've got a paradox of being your own father genetically. So for people to say, "If the universe has to have a creator then what caused the creator" is to make a mistake in their logic by assuming that our universe's principles apply to something that existed prior to our universe's principles.
As I said in my earlier statement, there must either be a prime mover or we must eventually reach a universe in which the principle of causality is somehow not relevant or active. There is no reason to assume that the creator of our universe is at the top. But, there is also no reason to assume that universes even exist in any conventional means above our own.
I am merely positing the idea that the principles of our universe rely on cause and effect as we have observed and so to truly get something from nothing would be a huge upsetting of our understanding of the universe. It would be magic. Something from nothing wouldn't even be the advanced technology that looks like magic, it would literally be supernatural magic because there is no technology or reason behind it or that would be the cause.
As far as any principles governing the creator of our own universe. We don't know. Could be a pimple-faced kid or could be very similar to the all-knowing/all-powerful being of our human faiths. Me presenting the concept that He could have a cause Himself is just me broadening the scope of how we think about things and hopefully distancing myself from the Faiths that atheism is so often embattled with.
Look, religion is used to control people. Always has been. But I'm not talking about religion here.
So, in terms of Dawkin's scale, you're a 3.5-4, and I'm somewhere around 6.
For me personally? I am intellectually a 4 I would say. I have no problem leaning towards a creator on the basis of causality.
I am a bit of a wild card, however. I am able to distinguish the things I believe based on reason from things I believe based on faith. My personal belief system and the way I live my life would likely be considered a 2. But hopefully I have made it avidly clear that when discussing the notion of a creator I am not inserting any religious beliefs into the matter. No assumptions of qualities or any such thing that a religion teaches. I am far too interested in viewing facts objectively than to insert preconceived bias. I fully accept that my belief in God, particularly the Christian God, is a product of how I was raised and faith rather than reason. Hopefully you can look past that statement to see my argument for what it is. A scientific discourse void of religious tenets. I hope that does not color your opinion of me and I wish I could assure you that though I am a Christian I'm not a dick about it. Sad that I feel the need to preface that. I'm certainly aware of the vocal members of the faith, embarrassingly so. Interestingly I do have a reason why I prefer Christianity out of the various religions man kind has presented so far (I once wrote a thesis on it as the betting man's religion in that most other religions would give a person of integrity a pass anyways). But when it became our duty to impose our lifestyles on others I'll never know. Surely the Bible says, "Make people believe like you and force them to act and always behave like you. Also, be a dick and act superior whenever possible." [/sarcasm] But I'm more the guy that builds actual orphanages for children than the guy that gives them little more than words to feast on. So hopefully you'll see me as a positive instance at least. I would add that if I intellectually had a reason to believe there's likely no creator I would have no problem saying that I'm a 6 while via faith being a 2. Sorry for such compartmentalization but when you realize that some beliefs are just faith and not reason-based you kinda have to make that distinction if you're going to view things objectively.