Philosophy Now Forum

Beliefs and truth claims are different. One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:33 pm Plantinga's OA is a mess

What did he have to say about your argument when you spoke to him?

When nontheists hear stuff like "I wonder how 'let it be' will serve in the end," we don't see theists trying to extend a helping hand. We see attempts to browbeat nonbelievers into submission for the purpose of social control. 'We see priests backed by kings demanding obeisance to the church lest nonbelievers burn in hellfire, etc. This serves the purpose of both kings and priests who get nice, docile subjects to be fleeced and exploited.

I understand the guess, but it's a poor one, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, Christians don't seek "social control," by definition. Christ Himself claimed, "My kingdom is not of this world." We don't care to control anyone. Rather, we appeal to each man's conscience. John Locke had that right. (See his "Letter Concerning Toleration," which explains all this quite nicely). Secondly, Christians actually believe what they say. If you saw someone you genuinely believed to be in danger, and you said nothing, what kind of person would that make you? You can't blame Christians for crying "Fire!" when they see that you're in a burning house.

In any event, as I have argued elsewhere, a God who would torture someone for eternity simply for lacking belief in God is a thoroughly wicked entity and not worthy of worship even if he exists.

Atheism has no such thing as "wickedness," and so logically cannot even make that accusation. But let's allow it anyway, even if it's essentially a denial of Atheism. After all, I do genuinely think Atheism's got the whole situation wrong, and there is genuinely such a thing as "wickedness."

It's interesting that the Atheist blames God in two contradictory ways. First, he says he doesn't want God, because believing in God would inhibit his moral and personal freedom. Some even imagine it would remove their choice. And they say that any God who would do that would not be worth believing in. But then, secondly, they say that if God gives them choice, and honours their choice when they make it, then God is not being fair either. They say they don't want God -- but God is, by definition, the Giver of all good things, even the good things like free will, the things that Atheists themselves hope to enjoy. And if God honours the Atheist's decision, and eventually separated the Atheist from Himself, the Atheist cries foul again.

There are terms of relationship for every relationship. No relationship is one-sided...if it is, it's not a relationship. You can't justly blame God for giving the Atheist, at long last, exactly what the Atheist has been wanting all along...even if that's a wretched choice. For if the alternative is to deny Atheists the right of choice, then no genuine relationship with God would be possible for anyone. Genuine choice is the sine qua non of relationship.

However, that is not what the Atheist actually wants, it is? What the Atheist wants is to have all the benefits of God without any relationship with God. They want God to be only favourable to them, and also not to exist, and also to indulge evil. They want a relational God to relate to them without relating to them. In other words, the Atheist wants a "square circle." He wants what nobody can, by definition, ever have. And he calls God "bad" for not giving it to him, and instead for giving him the dignity both of free choice and of living with the consequences of that free choice.

Be careful, therefore, whom you call "wicked." The one who is making the wicked choice is the Atheist himself. And if he can't live with his choice, then whose fault is that?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:26 am most atheists I know are agnostic not gnostic.

They deny they are "agnostic" actually. I've tried saying to them, "You're not an Atheist; you're a hard agnostic," even though that is what people like Dawkins say about themselves. The Atheists on this board won't have any of that.

But what they don't get is what you do get: that that commits them to a positive knowledge claim they can never back. That's why it's totally irrational for anyone to call themselves an Atheist on any other grounds but pure caprice: they can NEVER have sufficient evidence for such a position. And if they thought clearly for ten seconds, they'd realize it.

That's a fact even Dawkins himself has grasped. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfk7tW429E4. Now, if you can see the problem with Atheism immediately, and it's actually so glaring that even Richard Dawkins himself can't miss it, then how do the Atheists on this board insist they remain Atheists NOT agnostics, even if they also admit they have no positive, evidentiary or rational disproof for God to offer anyone? It just doesn't make a lick of sense.

They do not think that God exists, but cannot prove it. That is an assumption rather than an assertion and so it is not a truth claim

You're absolutely right. It's only an assumption, and has no justified claim to truth.

Now, next question: is it a gratuitous assumption, or do they now start to imagine that it's an evidentiary one?

davidm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:36 am Beliefs and truth claims are different. One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

If that were true, then one would wonder what "agnostic" actually meant. What is "not-known" by the agnostic?

The problem is that all Christians and all Atheists, and in fact, all persons who "know" anything are, in fact, claiming not to "know" absolutely, but rather to know probabilistically. All empirical knowledge is probabilistic, you see.

So we're only talking about levels of certainty, not about doing a different kind of knowledge. The "Atheist-agnostic," if such a thing there could be, would only be saying, "I regard the majority of evidence to be against the idea of God," and the "Theist-agnostic" would only be saying, "I regard the preponderance of evidence to favour the existence of God."

What then is being added by the term "agnostic"? Only the truism that all beliefs are matters of relative and probabilistic certitude, not absolutes. But we know that anyway, so it doesn't need stating, surely. In fact, Theists believe that faith (i.e. a final judgment based on the preponderance of evidence) is an absolutely necessary part of knowing.

The only difference on that between them and the Atheists is that the Atheists generally fear to admit that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:49 pm
The problem is that all Christians and all Atheists, and in fact, all persons who "know" anything are, in fact, claiming not to "know" absolutely, but rather to know probabilistically. All empirical knowledge is probabilistic, you see.

I don't think so. Probability requires absolute knowledge in that we know all the possible outcomes. We just do not know which outcome. For example, if we toss a coin we can say the probability of 'heads' is 50%, because we know the probability of the only other possibility; 'tails', is also 50%. If the two do not add up to 100%, i.e. if some possibilities were unknown (could the coin land on its edge?), then we can't know the probabilities.

The correct description is that empirical knowledge in 'uncertain'. If I do not know whether the universe is as I perceive it then the position is - that I do not know! I cannot assign any degree of probability to any particular answer being correct.

So we're only talking about levels of certainty, not about doing a different kind of knowledge. The "Atheist-agnostic," if such a thing there could be, would only be saying, "I regard the majority of evidence to be against the idea of God," and the "Theist-agnostic" would only be saying, "I regard the preponderance of evidence to favour the existence of God."

Again, neither can talk about 'preponderance' I could only say that the preponderance of evidence was on one side if I knew the totality of evidence, such that I could weigh one side against the other and see which had the majority.

Londoner wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:18 pm Probability requires absolute knowledge in that we know all the possible outcomes.

Sorry, but no, it doesn't. You don't need more than two possibilities -- such as that either X will happen, or X will not -- and you have enough to make a probability calculation. And that's what we do all the time.

if some possibilities were unknown (could the coin land on its edge?), then we can't know the probabilities.

We don't "know" probabilities in that sense at all. We estimate them, not know them absolutely. That's the point, actually. If we had perfect knowledge of all the relevant variables, we would not need to "estimate" their likelihood at all.

I cannot assign any degree of probability to any particular answer being correct.

Sorry again...that's just not true. You can't assign an exact degree of probability; but you can estimate one. For example, you can estimate the chances that Sunderland's first squad could win a game against a field of grandmothers.

Or maybe that's not a clear example.

I could only say that the preponderance of evidence was on one side if I knew the totality of evidence, such that I could weigh one side against the other and see which had the majority.

You don't need the "totality." All you need is there to be more available evidence for X than for Y. Then you take your shot, and you live with the outcome.

And that's just how life works. There is no absolute knowledge in the empirical realm, not for anyone. But highly probabilistic knowledge is very good stuff, and most of the time, especially when we get the odds right, we win.

Go back to the example of the coin. If I offered you this wager, would you take it: "If it's heads, you give me a million Euros; if it's tails, you give me a million Euros; but if the coin stands on its edge after the flip, I give you a million Euros" -- take it, or not?

I would. But you'd be crazy to do it, even though you don't know the odds of a perfect edge-stand.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:30 pm For example, you can estimate the chances that Sunderland's first squad could win a game against a field of grandmothers.

Or maybe that's not a clear example.

You would need to specify what game is being played and how the teams are equipped. Sub-machine Guns for the grandmothers could negate any advantage the other team has.

The grandmothers could very easily win the game of checkers or bingo.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:30 pm
Sorry, but no, it doesn't. You don't need more than two possibilities -- such as that either X will happen, or X will not -- and you have enough to make a probability calculation. And that's what we do all the time.

We do not make 'probability calculations' all the time, we guess. We guess that if today is not much has changed, then today will broadly resemble yesterday. But this does not work with God, since we don't know if God existed yesterday,

We don't "know" probabilities in that sense at all. We estimate them, not know them absolutely. That's the point, actually. If we had perfect knowledge of all the relevant variables, we would not need to "estimate" their likelihood at all.

No, probabilities can be known exactly - if we know all the possible outcomes. The odds on dice throws are not estimates; we know exactly what the odds of throwing a 'six' are. That is distinct from individual outcomes.

Sorry again...that's just not true. You can't assign an exact degree of probability; but you can estimate one. For example, you can estimate the chances that Sunderland's first squad could win a game against a field of grandmothers.

Now you are no longer talking about 'probability' but some unspecified process called 'estimating'.

You don't need the "totality." All you need is there to be more available evidence for X than for Y. Then you take your shot, and you live with the outcome.

Or called 'taking a shot'.

Go back to the example of the coin. If I offered you this wager, would you take it: "If it's heads, you give me a million Euros; if it's tails, you give me a million Euros; but if the coin stands on its edge after the flip, I give you a million Euros" -- take it, or not?

I would. But you'd be crazy to do it, even though you don't know the odds of a perfect edge-stand.

Indeed, I don't know, and you don't offer me odds in that bet anyway. However, I could calculate them, assuming I knew all the possibilities of what could happen when we tossed the coin.

However, when talking about the existence or non-existence of God, there are not just two possibilities, making the odds 50/50. I will give you an example: A meteorite might hit the earth tomorrow, or it might not. So, since there are only two possibilities, do you think the odds are 50/50? If you can see why they aren't, then you know why we cannot assign a probability to the existence of God.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:49 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:36 am Beliefs and truth claims are different. One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

If that were true, then one would wonder what "agnostic" actually meant. What is "not-known" by the agnostic?

Mr Can you could very easily find out what "agnostic" actually means. This would be a good place to look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism The word was invented by Thomas Huxley, who defined it thus:

"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not."

If you wish to coin a phrase for the sort of people you are referring to, that is entirely your prerogative, but 'agnostic' is taken, and it doesn't describe the people you attach the label to.

Immanuel Can wrote:The problem is that all Christians and all Atheists, and in fact, all persons who "know" anything are, in fact, claiming not to "know" absolutely, but rather to know probabilistically. All empirical knowledge is probabilistic, you see.

No Mr Can; it is you that does not see. Scientific hypotheses are inferences from empirical data. The empirical data are not "probabilistic", they are actual events or phenomena, that have been observed. There are two types of inference that can be drawn from the data.
The one that matters to physics is a mathematical model that generalises the data, and makes predictions about future observations. That cannot have a probability assigned to it, because there is no way of knowing that all future observations will be accounted for successfully by any given model. You use it until it breaks, and even then, you can still use it for the things it works for. Gravity is, as ever, a case in point; we know that Einstein's field equations are more accurate than Newton's inverse square law, but Newton is perfectly adequate for sending people to the Moon.
The second is the metaphysical hypothesis, which can be anything you fancy. Nothing wrong with the hypothesis that gravity works because god has attached metaphysical rubber bands to everything. That may or may not be true, but there is no 'probability' attached to such a claim. That the strength of these rubber bands is commensurate with Newton and Einstein is also not "probabilistic"; we can measure their strength.

Immanuel Can wrote:So we're only talking about levels of certainty, not about doing a different kind of knowledge. The "Atheist-agnostic," if such a thing there could be, would only be saying, "I regard the majority of evidence to be against the idea of God," and the "Theist-agnostic" would only be saying, "I regard the preponderance of evidence to favour the existence of God."

Again; no, Mr Can. The "Atheist-agnostic" is saying "One cannot know whether there is a god, and I don't believe there is." and the "Theist-agnostic is saying, "You're right, Atheist-agnostic, one cannot know whether there is a god, but I believe it anyway."

Immanuel Can wrote:What then is being added by the term "agnostic"?

Mr Can, if you would only look up "agnostic", you could answer your own question.

Immanuel Can wrote:Only the truism that all beliefs are matters of relative and probabilistic certitude, not absolutes. But we know that anyway, so it doesn't need stating, surely. In fact, Theists believe that faith (i.e. a final judgment based on the preponderance of evidence) is an absolutely necessary part of knowing.

That's because some theists can't tell the difference between faith and knowledge.

Immanuel Can wrote:The only difference on that between them and the Atheists is that the Atheists generally fear to admit that.

That is an hypothesis that you have generated with absurdly biased interpretation of woefully inadequate data.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:30 pmFirstly, Christians don't seek "social control," by definition. Christ Himself claimed, "My kingdom is not of this world."

Then what was he, and in his name you, doing telling us how to behave?

Immanuel Can wrote:It's interesting that the Atheist blames God in two contradictory ways.

In which case, they are not atheists.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:30 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:33 pm Plantinga's OA is a mess

What did he have to say about your argument when you spoke to him?

I have no intention of speaking to him -- or rather, I should say, trying to speak to him. Do you think he would speak to me even if I tried to speak to him?

Why do you keep laboring these irrelevant asides? Why don't you address the substance of the issue -- that Plantinga's OA is hokum, as I have repeatedly demonstrated? And -- just as I predicted -- you refuse to admit the truth of what I have plainly demonstrated. Am I clairvoyant or what?

Immanuel Can wrote:

It's interesting that the Atheist blames God in two contradictory ways. First, he says he doesn't want God, because believing in God would inhibit his moral and personal freedom.

This atheist respects God too much to be sure that she knows all about God. I describe myself as an atheist for social reasons. So that true believers of any sort don't presume that I belong to their club.

Londoner wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:52 pm Guess...probability estimate...taking a shot...

These terms are distinct only by the variable of how much information is potentially involved in each case -- if at all. It's not really clear at which point an "estimate of probability," an "empirical judgment," or a "shot" turns into a "guess," in fact, nor how one ranks these. They are not completely distinct processes, since all involve some degree of uncertainty and some degree of information, rather than absolute certainty in any case.

So if you're going to advance a stimulative set of definitions for these, perhaps you'd stipulate them in advance, so we don't end up speaking at cross-purposes. It's usually a good idea to make terms clear from the get-go.

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:20 pm Why do you keep laboring these irrelevant asides?

That would be my question back the other way.

You have the means to pursue Plantinga's OA, if you care about it. But it's neither the only, nor (in my view) even the most important Theistic argument -- nor am I Alvin Plantinga. So persisting in misunderstanding (or, as you would prefer, in criticizing it) in the absence of its chief proponent has no utility for anyone.

If you care about it, the right move is to speak to Plantinga, who is quite an approachable fellow, actually.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:25 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:20 pm Why do you keep laboring these irrelevant asides?

That would be my question back the other way.

You have the means to pursue Plantinga's OA, if you care about it. But it's neither the only, nor (in my view) even the most important Theistic argument -- nor am I Alvin Plantinga. So persisting in misunderstanding (or, as you would prefer, in criticizing it) in the absence of its chief proponent has no utility for anyone.

If you care about it, the right move is to speak to Plantinga, who is quite an approachable fellow, actually.

Oh, dear. Why don't you tell me what my "misunderstanding" of Plantinga's OA is? I have repeatedly invited you to address the substance of my rebuttal of it, and you have repeatedly declined -- choosing instead to focus on the irrelevant aside of my expressed opinion of his motives. This is especially strange because I did not even ad hom him -- saying that his "proof" was wrong because of some personal characteristic of his. I showed why the proof was wrong, in several different posts -- none of which you have responded to.

As noted, the Christian God apparently must be defended by a bodyguard of lies -- strange, that, for the "one, true God."