Atheism

[Immanuel Can]

You are (in my view) a “sick puppy” Immanuel.

The problem's in your eyes again. You don't see God; you also don't see me. You don't see much of anything, I would say.

But you might be just one of those people who's already decided what he's willing to see and not see. That seems likely.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Less a “problem” and more an issue of insight, interpretation and also decisive intelligence.

The miraculousness of the world, and being, and life (existence) have not been negated nor muted. Perhaps you could say that perception changed gears?

You qua Christian-Evangelical (fanatic illusionist) must be overcome and transcended. The next question is more “how” and how carefully.

Great care (insight, intelligence) is required.

How is that to be gained?

[VVilliam]

That's actually just a definition of "agnosticism"

I don't think "lacking belief in gods" accurately defines Agnosticism either, but I agree that atheism has some work to do in properly defining its position.

Right. There's more to agnosticism, even. Agnostics can exist on a range: everything from what Dawkins calls himself, a "firm agnostic" to a "soft agnostic," which might well be somebody who is very nearly convinced of the truth of Theism.

But what's really the point is that such a definition isn't really going to cover Atheism well, or in a very flattering way.

Even so, all Positions appear to have the same range/spectrum of so-called strong - middling - to weak personalities, and these in themselves do not define the positions being discussed.

-- unless it's coupled with a stronger claim, like, "because such don't exist."
Generally there is such coupling, and so the lack of belief is touted as the core identity of atheism, which as you have pointed out, would include any person which can lack belief in gods, further confusing agnostics as atheists.

Therefore, it is important to be aware of where this particular definition of Agnosticism derives and why it is faulty.

I've found that agnostics generally know what they are, but Atheists don't always want to be known as Atheists.

And with good reason: Atheism is irrational, and agnosticism can at least be reasonable. The problem, though, for the Atheist, is that saying, "I'm agnostic" doesn't do much to convince anybody else, or even to assure oneself that one is right. So it makes the Atheist's position much weaker than many Atheists would like it to be.

I think there is merit in this observation.

As you're wording it, it leaves wide open the possibility that God or gods still exist, but the speaker just "lacks belief in them."

The way I am wording it comes from my experience with those calling themselves atheists as it is they who generally word it as such.
I agree that 'lacking belief in gods" allows for the possibility that gods exist, which is not how atheists I have engaged with present their philosophy - and since they do have philosophy, it cannot be simply a case of lacking belief in gods.

I'm not sure I see the logic of that last statement. How what does "have philosophy" mean? I know people who DO philosophy...and I have met those who have specific philosophies in mind. I've never met anybody who just "had philosophy," without further specification. It's a bit like saying somebody "has religion," without saying which one.

Yes. I was using it in that context. I understand there are different sub-categories within each of the three Positions, seeing no current necessity to being any more specific than that.

But I agree that the discourse of Atheism is very confusing. They sometimes talk as if they're only agnostics, and then other times, they want to self-present as Atheists. I think that's a function of the problem I've been pointing out: namely, that agnosticism is more intellectually honest but is weak as a statement, and Atheism is manifestly irrational and dishonest, but much more strong as a statement.

The overall position of Agnosticism is the strongest, (denotes no weakness) and to define Agnosticism as "lack of belief in gods" is a misinformed perspective.

The problem for the Atheist, then, is how to get the strength of statement without exposing the irrationalism. And this is the way they tend to do it: they call themselves Atheists when they want to attack, but only defend as if they were only agnostics.

I think this view identifies where the misinformation re Agnosticism being "weak" comes from.

The truth is, they really need to sort themselves out. "Lacking belief" is only strong enough as a claim to warrant agnosticism.

Or the truth is, lacking belief in gods is the default position of every human personality and it is from that point we each make the personal choice of the three positions available to us.

"I know there's no God" is the kind of attacking-claim the Atheists are keen to be able to make, though.

Materialists are the ones making such claims. To say otherwise is to support the misinformed opinion of what Agnosticism really is.

And to "lack belief" in something that he either could know or should know is not any badge of honour, but rather just a confession of ignorance or inexperience.

As an Agnostic I am able to avoid using such judgement statements as I am aware that many calling themselves atheists who debate theists are themselves former theists who have become disillusioned with theism and its claims of gods.

Okay. But then you're badly positioned to accuse somebody else of being, say, irrational, for believing in God.

Not at all. There is nothing bad about that position. The position is strong in that is is able to (easily) integrate theistic beliefs without having to actually adopt those beliefs as "true" or treat those beliefs as "false".

That's what the "angry Atheist" types like Dawkins don't like about your position: they can't call faith a "delusion" if they aren't pretending to know that it is a delusion.

That is the rock and hard place Materialism has created for itself.

But even Dawkins retreats into agnosticism, when pushed. He doesn't want to have to defend Atheism as a knowledge claim. It's as aggressive as he wants, but too indefensible when questioned.

Of course, such lack of being able to decide where exactly one best position oneself is problematic. From an agnostic position, both the materialist and theist positions offer a wall - one which it is claimed nothing exists on the other side of said wall, and the other offering all sorts of unsupported imaginings in the form of varying claims as to what does "actually" exist on the other side of that wall.

So it leaves the speaker open to the suggestion that he just hasn't got enough experience or thoughtfulness to know anything about the subject -- but it leaves the question of the possible existence of a God or gods inadequately addressed.

I would call that "turning a blind eye" but also note that this tactic is used by theists with strong unsupported beliefs, so wouldn't agree with any statement implying it is solely problematic for atheism.

I agree, actually: Theistic beliefs can be held blindly. People sometimes do that. But Atheism always is.

No - not "atheism" as I have Agnostically defined it. What you are really referring to is "Materialism".

Can agnosticism be blind?

Yes. Agnosticism is as blind (to knowing what is on the other side of the wall) as are both Materiaism and Theism.

Can we insist we don't know things, when we really do know them, or should know them, or have available all the good reasons to know them but refuse to know them?

No.

I suppose it can, too.

As soon as any supported information is supplied by Materialism and Theism, Agnosticism is able and willing to integrate said data into the overall picture such data presents. Thus it does not turn a blind eye as the position does not allow for the personality to use it in that way.

So maybe that's only a comment about the people, not the belief. I think agnosticism can be rational, just as Theism can be. I don't see how we can save Atheism, though.

Atheism (as Agnosticism defines it) is not something which requires "saving" as it is simply the natural default position from which the personality steps into the situation from. The situation creates the positions mentioned - Materialism Theism and Agnosticism and the personalities choose accordingly.
Human personalities (people) shape beliefs - human personalities go where they feel most comfortable.

Atheists would be smart to reject so weak a definition. It leaves them no means to say that God does not exist, and puts the fault back on the speaker for "lacking" knowledge.

I don't think the words themselves are weak re describing an actuality (such as you pointed out - it applies to Agnosticism) but it is inadequate as a stand alone definition of either Atheism and Agnosticism.

Yes, it needs more. And I think we can tell what it would be.

Atheism would have to say, "I lack belief in God, because I know He doesn't exist."

This would require explaining the knowledge the gods don't exist be they "he" she" or "it" gods.
(Agnosticism does not automatically assume there is one God and that He exists as that is a sub category of the Theistic Position.)

And agnosticism would have to say something more like, "I lack believe in God because I personally have not seen evidence for God."

Not quite so. None of the positions are "personal" (which explain why there exists sub-categorizes)
An Agnostic would say "show me the evidence and I will assess it in relation to all the other evidence."

In both cases, it's the second clause that makes the ideological position clear; the first clause is identical, so doesn't tell us which we're dealing with.

No quite so. For all, the starting position is "lacks belief" and from that point, Beliefs are general present in both Materialist and Theist positions, but not in the Agnostic position. Agnostics do not argue from belief(s).

I think the evidence supports the premise that IF everyone starts off lacking belief in gods they are "atheists" THEN as each personality develops through its experience, everyone moves from being atheist to being one of three types of positions. Agnostic, Materialist or Theist.

We'd have to say it's the other way around, I would think. What seems clear from history and sociology is that human beings seem to have an inbuilt intuition about God; how else do we explain that 100% of societies, especially those that have never had contact with each other, have some sort of belief in God or gods?

As an Agnostic I can integrate this concept into the overall if it is argued as a subconscious knowledge but my saying we start out as Natural Atheists has to do with our conscious knowledge, which is set to "zero" as to begin with we do not even know about subconscious knowledge.

It's really the Atheism that is learned, not instinctive.

You are arguing instinct (subconscious knowledge) whereas I am speaking about conscious ignorance being the natural starting point of the human personality.

We don't even find Atheism as a major ideology capable of influencing a whole society until pretty much the 18th Century, and even then, only in Europe.

Even so, Theism is derived from a conscious awareness of the subconscious reality and this has been/is still a gradual awareness for that.
Materialism became a position in being able to seriously question much of what Theism claimed as "real" (without any supporting evidence) re the multitude of claims Theism externalized into the world.

Now, it might be different in your personal case, and I don't call doubt upon your claim that it was. Perhaps you were born into an ethos in which disregard for any questions about God was the general practice, or the people around you were Atheistic, or that you never personally found reasons to think about it: how would I know, really? So I don't guess.

Yes - at this point of the discussion, my background as an Agnostic is besides the points being made.

But I think the general human pattern has been the opposite: intuitions, at least, of the existence of God occur very naturally and very early in many people; and it takes a later exercise of will for many of them to expunge such intuitions from their consciousness.

Suppress rather than expunge. If indeed these intuitions are subconscious realities which require examination, then they can only be consciously suppressed. If they could be expunged, then no interest in them should be forthcoming from the Materialist position and indifference would be the defult setting of Materialism.

Even Dawkins claims that, interestingly.

Your mention of Dawkins tells me that you (perhaps) regard his word on such matters as being worthy of consideration and honest for that.

He thinks that we all have a normal inclination toward belief in a Being above us, and an impulse to worship. He says he even feels it, whenever he looks at the complexity and sophistication of biology. Nevertheless, he demands that we must fight and override that instinct, because, he says, it's not to be believed.

In that, (as an Agnostic) I would interpret this as coming from a frustration due to Theism being unable to explain itself in a manner that integrates the physical evidence with the intuitive claims made through Theism.

For me this has meant I started out as a natural born atheist (re the question and associated questions Theism brings to the table) and developed from that in the Agnostic Position, largely because of the unsupported assumptions coming from Materialism and Theism. imo a most honest personality naturally evolves into the Agnostic Position.

The agnostic position is, as I say, at least an honest one. What could be more honest than confessing, "I don't know"?

Not just "at least" but "accordingly". If we do not know, we don't not claim to know.

But we've got to be cautious not to let it become irrational and dishonest, if it should turn out to be the case that evidence exists, and we simply refuse to entertain any, because we've already made up our minds that we're going to remain agnostic-to-the-death, no matter what. That can happen.

Such cannot happen unless the Agnostic defects to one of either the other two positions (Materialism or Theism). If such occurs, then one would no longer be an Agnostic.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Immanuel:

In your mental world if one does not accept the central tenets of your belief-system, one is thereby damned. We have gone over this a thousand times and it has been rehearsed over and over in different moments and certainly by various people who contribute here. I reject the core tenets of your belief system! However, that does not mean (as it can only mean for you) that I reject the metaphysical principles involved in the Christian system or in other conceptual-existential systems.

When I say this I part company with you on an intellectual level! And therefore I can only hope to *make sense* to others who write here.

I have referenced Hamlet, a play that you are familiar with but can only see through the same lens that you view everything! My assertion is that such a lens cannot enable you to see fully, yet it is certainly of use in seeing partially. That is how I view your ChristianEvangelical (fanatical) lens. That what I say has sense in it, is true, but you cannot register that sense because your religious system is reductive to the utmost.

Insofar as I have a *religious system* (or a spiritual system) mine is far less reductive than yours is. I am open to far more than you can conceive as being valuable or relevant.

In any case, and though I know you will not grasp the gist here, I submit an interesting paragraph from Caroline F.E. Spurgeon's Leading Motives in the Imagery of Shakespeare's Tragedies:

Thus, to Shakespeare's pictorial imagination, the problem in Hamlet is not predominantly that of will and reason, of a mind too philosophic or a nature temperamentally unfitted to act quickly; he sees it pictorially, not as the problem of an individual at all, but as something greater and even more mysterious, as a condition for which the individual himself is apparently not responsible, any more than the sick man is to blame for the cancer which strikes and devours him, but which, nevertheless, in its course and development impartially and relentlessly annihilates him and others, innocent and guilty alike. That is the tragedy of Hamlet, as it is, perhaps, the chief tragic mystery of life.

When I refer to *The World* in which we find ourselves, and when I refer to the *real world* and not an imposed or overlaid view of Our World, I believe that I get close to the problem that many if not most here face. Spurgeon expresses it like this

"a condition for which the individual himself is apparently not responsible, any more than the sick man is to blame for the cancer which strikes and devours him, but which, nevertheless, in its course and development impartially and relentlessly annihilates him and others, innocent and guilty alike."

In your strange perceptual system, dominated by a specific religious view, man is responsible not only for his own condition in a world where suffering and disappointment are inevitable (to put it lightly), but he is responsible for the fallen condition of the world. That is, you believe that the original sin affected the Cosmos and ruined or contaminated *the world*. Literally, the sin of Adam & Eve poisoned life.

This view is part of an *explanatory system*. It is not necessarily *truth* but rather a notion, or a story, that is imposed on your perception.

Therefore, what I understand is that not only am I in the condition of the character in the play, but that the condition of the character in this play, and a great deal of Shakespeare's depth analysis, actually has defined how our perceptual model has shifted. I do not say, and I could not say, that Hamlet's condition of perception and the depth of what he realizes makes living of life any easier, it certainly does not. But I do say that *reality* begins to dawn on him and in him.

Reality does not and will not dawn in you, Immanuel, since you are wedded to illusions and child-stories of former times. You are therefore no help to any one of us writing here! You say that you hold *the cure* but your cure is no cure at all!

So what I am pushed to is that awareness of what is "something greater and even more mysterious" than what we may have supposed confronts us and meets the eye. You say "I see clearly" and you say that you see truly. I say that you see irreally and also falsely. You see through imposing illusionary material over what is real. You have created an edifice of belief in which you reside unperturbed or at least this is what you present to everyone here. I do not believe you. I think you are invested in lies. But they are so interwoven with your persona that you will never transcend them. It would be one thing, of course, if you kept your preaching to yourself. But you declare "I have the truth" and "If you do not accept and believe the truth that I declare you will suffer eternity in god's horrifying hell."

You say this time and again -- because it says something like that in the NT.

Therefore, given the high stakes, I am forced to confront the religious system that has you in its grip. Not because I imagine I can influence you but because, rather, that I believe that restoration and recovery can only really begin when, and if, the truths that I suggest need to be realized, are realized.

You see? I have said that you are the best teacher ever! But what you teach is not what you intend to teach.

[phyllo]

Is there any possibility that you two stop bitching about each other?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Take it at a more abstract level, Phyllo. It seems it is (for my part) a complaint or an issue with Immanuel. But he is actually irrelevant (to my process and purpose).

Just focus on the IDEAS.

Every play (rehearsal) must have a human context. But don’t confuse the context with the meaning that comes through.

And consider supporting my work with a hefty donation on Patreon. (US$100 is typical but four figures not uncommon).

You too Immanuel. You Christian cheapskate!

[phyllo]

Do not refer to him at all.

Then the IDEAs become applicable to Everytheist or Everychristian or everyone with the specific attributes which you identify.

As it is, it's too much about him.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You negate one of the most central aspects of forum exchange and interchange. For me it is not that the personal must be avoided, but rather that it must be done artfully.

Now, what you have done is to have fueled Immanuel’s absolute refusal to focus on the critical ideas but on the (as he exclaims pathetically) ad hominem insult.

Were he to behave better I’d beat him less.

[iambiguous]

Just a reminder of what is at stake here...

1] moral commandments on this side of the grave...letting God do the thinking for you
2] immortality and salvation on the other side of it...soul to soul

You know, the actual "for all practical purposes" reason that Gods and religions exist in the first place.

That's why for those like me, any discussion of God has to eventually get around to something in the way of proof that a God, the God, your God does in fact exist.

Well, that and theodicy.

Or, sure, insist it is only "ideas" about these things that count in a philosophy forum.

Logic and God?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Or, sure, insist it is only "ideas" about these things that count in a philosophy forum.

I insist therefore that that’s the case. In one way or another. All the time. Always.

[Immanuel Can]

That's actually just a definition of "agnosticism"

I don't think "lacking belief in gods" accurately defines Agnosticism either, but I agree that atheism has some work to do in properly defining its position.

Right. There's more to agnosticism, even. Agnostics can exist on a range: everything from what Dawkins calls himself, a "firm agnostic" to a "soft agnostic," which might well be somebody who is very nearly convinced of the truth of Theism.

But what's really the point is that such a definition isn't really going to cover Atheism well, or in a very flattering way.

Even so, all Positions appear to have the same range/spectrum of so-called strong - middling - to weak personalities, and these in themselves do not define the positions being discussed.

Right: agnosticism comes in a big, big range, including everything from "I really, really think there are no gods," to "I'm very tempted to think God exists, but am just not quite sure yet." That's a big spectrum.

By contrast, Atheism comes in only one real flavour: dogmatic. If it doesn't manage to deny the real existence of God/gods, then it's really just an agnosticism from the first end of the spectrum that's being expressed, not a firm Atheism at all, I would say.

But I agree that the discourse of Atheism is very confusing. They sometimes talk as if they're only agnostics, and then other times, they want to self-present as Atheists. I think that's a function of the problem I've been pointing out: namely, that agnosticism is more intellectually honest but is weak as a statement, and Atheism is manifestly irrational and dishonest, but much more strong as a statement.

The overall position of Agnosticism is the strongest,

Well, that depends on the use to which the label is being summoned. If its purpose is to explain one's own disposition, then it's the strongest (i.e. most defensible) of the skeptical options. But if its purpose is to convince others what tho believe, then it's the weakest; because it doesn't tell them they have to deny the existence of anything at all.

"I know there's no God" is the kind of attacking-claim the Atheists are keen to be able to make, though.

Materialists are the ones making such claims.[/quote] Often true. But it's kind of hard to provide any rationale for Atheism if one doesn't also believe in Materalism, or Physicalism, CS Realism, or some such idea. So the ideas tend to kind of cling together. I suppose it might be possible to describe an Atheism that doesn't also require some such supposition, but it would be hard to do, I think. They're pretty much a matched pair.

But if you think maybe you can do it, that would be interesting.

And to "lack belief" in something that he either could know or should know is not any badge of honour, but rather just a confession of ignorance or inexperience.

As an Agnostic I am able to avoid using such judgement statements as I am aware that many calling themselves atheists who debate theists are themselves former theists who have become disillusioned with theism and its claims of gods.

Okay. But then you're badly positioned to accuse somebody else of being, say, irrational, for believing in God.

Not at all. There is nothing bad about that position. The position is strong in that is is able to (easily) integrate theistic beliefs without having to actually adopt those beliefs as "true" or treat those beliefs as "false".

Hmmm. I can't see any reason for adopting ANY belief that one has already permanently decided can be neither true nor false; so it seems to me that any agnostic has to be open to the possibility he's wrong to hold agnosticism.

But even Dawkins retreats into agnosticism, when pushed. He doesn't want to have to defend Atheism as a knowledge claim. It's as aggressive as he wants, but too indefensible when questioned.

Of course, such lack of being able to decide where exactly one best position oneself is problematic. From an agnostic position, both the materialist and theist positions offer a wall - one which it is claimed nothing exists on the other side of said wall, and the other offering all sorts of unsupported imaginings in the form of varying claims as to what does "actually" exist on the other side of that wall.

That's pretty fair. But whereas the agnostic can wonder whether the Theist has "seen over the wall," he already has to realize that the Atheist cannot possibly have done so. And he can wonder whether or not he could, himself, see over that wall.

Can agnosticism be blind?

Yes. Agnosticism is as blind (to knowing what is on the other side of the wall) as are both Materiaism and Theism.

No. I meant, "Can it be a product of nothing but blind faith or blind unfaith, the way Theism can sometimes be, and Atheism always is?

As soon as any supported information is supplied by Materialism and Theism, Agnosticism is able and willing to integrate said data into the overall picture such data presents. Thus it does not turn a blind eye as the position does not allow for the personality to use it in that way.

Oh, I agree that's what agnosticism CAN do. I'm asking whether some agnostics can also go the other way, and refuse to be persuaded, even when the evidence is available. And I think they can.

So maybe that's only a comment about the people, not the belief. I think agnosticism can be rational, just as Theism can be. I don't see how we can save Atheism, though.

Atheism (as Agnosticism defines it) is not something which requires "saving"

I mean "saving from being recognized as inherently irrational," or "rescued from being exposed as a claim the Atheist can't back with the required evidence." It's that that Atheism cannot manage, I think. Both agnosticism and Theism can produce sufficient evidence, I think, to warrant their own positions, at least...whether or not they can produce sufficient evidence to close the whole case in their favour for everybody.

Yes, it needs more. And I think we can tell what it would be.
Atheism would have to say, "I lack belief in God, because I know He doesn't exist."

This would require explaining the knowledge the gods don't exist be they "he" she" or "it" gods.

I don't think so. If, for example, the whole idea of any God or gods were shown to be inherently irrational and self-contradictory, or were over powered by requisite evidence, I think we wouldn't even get to the question of what kind of God was being discussed.

And agnosticism would have to say something more like, "I lack believe in God because I personally have not seen evidence for God."

Not quite so. None of the positions are "personal" (which explain why there exists sub-categorizes)
An Agnostic would say "show me the evidence and I will assess it in relation to all the other evidence."[/quote]
That's still only personal, though. "Show ME the evidence, and I will..." and so on. What I mean by being more than personal is if the position in question can tell other people what they ought to think, or merely serve as the holding position for the speaker alone.

So, for example, Atheism tries to tell people they shouldn't believe in God. Theism tries to tell them they should. Agnosticism, however, doesn't try to tell them anything at all; it only says, "I don't know..."

Agnostics do not argue from belief(s).

Right. They argue they lack them. Except in the case of the obdurate agnostic I was talking about, the one who may decide not to believe anything, no matter how many arguments or how much evidence he/she becomes aware of. They have a belief in the universality and necessity of ignorance; and that would be another kind of belief.

I think the evidence supports the premise that IF everyone starts off lacking belief in gods they are "atheists" THEN as each personality develops through its experience, everyone moves from being atheist to being one of three types of positions. Agnostic, Materialist or Theist.

We'd have to say it's the other way around, I would think. What seems clear from history and sociology is that human beings seem to have an inbuilt intuition about God; how else do we explain that 100% of societies, especially those that have never had contact with each other, have some sort of belief in God or gods?

As an Agnostic I can integrate this concept into the overall if it is argued as a subconscious knowledge but my saying we start out as Natural Atheists has to do with our conscious knowledge, which is set to "zero" as to begin with we do not even know about subconscious knowledge.

I'm not sure we can even relegate the suspicion that God exists merely to the subconscious. Many of us are quite conscious of it, even at the beginning. But let's say we can: I'm not sure that would tell us much, except that the subconscious was where that intuition was being universally installed. It wouldn't argue that the belief is false. It might even argue that some Greater Force was installing the intuition of God's existence in our subconscious minds.

Now, it might be different in your personal case, and I don't call doubt upon your claim that it was. Perhaps you were born into an ethos in which disregard for any questions about God was the general practice, or the people around you were Atheistic, or that you never personally found reasons to think about it: how would I know, really? So I don't guess.

Yes - at this point of the discussion, my background as an Agnostic is besides the points being made.

It might matter to you. I can't guess at it. But if it were the case that you were raised with strong anti-God beliefs, or even raised in a place where such issues were just routinely ignored, it's possible you would find, later in life, that you had trouble imagining what role God would play in cognition or in life. Having been raised to ignore God, one might imagine He couldn't possibly be an important issue, and might bury one's awareness of God in the subconscious instead of acting on it. That could happen, too.

But I think the general human pattern has been the opposite: intuitions, at least, of the existence of God occur very naturally and very early in many people; and it takes a later exercise of will for many of them to expunge such intuitions from their consciousness.

Suppress rather than expunge. If indeed these intuitions are subconscious realities which require examination, then they can only be consciously suppressed. If they could be expunged, then no interest in them should be forthcoming from the Materialist position and indifference would be the defult setting of Materialism.

Yes, that's fair: suppress rather than expunge. I take your point.

Even Dawkins claims that, interestingly.

Your mention of Dawkins tells me that you (perhaps) regard his word on such matters as being worthy of consideration and honest for that.

No, I just find him the most convenient exemplar of the "angry Atheist" type. Few men actually get famous for their hatred of God; Dawkins is certainly one of them. He's made a mint on tours, selling books, doing interviews, and such, all to bolster the flagging un-faith of the ardent Atheist set. They pay him a lot of money, and he makes his statements very publicly.

That makes him the easiest example to use. But I could have chosen various others: Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Weilenberg...but they're all less well-known than Dawkins.

He thinks that we all have a normal inclination toward belief in a Being above us, and an impulse to worship. He says he even feels it, whenever he looks at the complexity and sophistication of biology. Nevertheless, he demands that we must fight and override that instinct, because, he says, it's not to be believed.

In that, (as an Agnostic) I would interpret this as coming from a frustration due to Theism being unable to explain itself in a manner that integrates the physical evidence with the intuitive claims made through Theism.

Well, if you read Dawkins's own biography, he'll tell you that he became a Atheist at 17. At that age, he wasn't a biologist. He wasn't even a scholar. He was in high school. So I don't think it was a problem with physical evidence that compelled him to make his decision; more likely, youthful rebellion.

For me this has meant I started out as a natural born atheist (re the question and associated questions Theism brings to the table) and developed from that in the Agnostic Position, largely because of the unsupported assumptions coming from Materialism and Theism. imo a most honest personality naturally evolves into the Agnostic Position.

The agnostic position is, as I say, at least an honest one. What could be more honest than confessing, "I don't know"?

Not just "at least" but "accordingly". If we do not know, we don't not claim to know.

And that's right: one should not claim what one does not know. But one also should not insist on not knowing something one could know.

But we've got to be cautious not to let it become irrational and dishonest, if it should turn out to be the case that evidence exists, and we simply refuse to entertain any, because we've already made up our minds that we're going to remain agnostic-to-the-death, no matter what. That can happen.

Such cannot happen unless the Agnostic defects to one of either the other two positions (Materialism or Theism). If such occurs, then one would no longer be an Agnostic.

Well, there's a kind of truth in that statement, but not quite, I think. He would be very much like an Atheist, but would differ from that in that his insistent postion would be not, as in Atheism, that God doesn't exist, but rather that nobody is allowed to know that God exists.

That's a funny way to put it, maybe. We might ask how he can confidently claim to know what the limits of other people's knowledge are. And I don't think he'd have much to say in defense against that. After all, how would he already know what anybody but himself happens to know or not know?

I'm not sure how much of an advance that would be on ordinary Atheism, in terms of rational defensibility. It would be a subspecies of agnosticism, though.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I cannot, and I will not, fail to express my disgust at watching Immanuel jerk William with pseudo-theological unction.

This is simply wrong, people. Wrong.

::: yech :::

[phyllo]

Anybody who replaces atheism with materialism, deserves whatever he gets.

[Sculptor]

Anybody who replaces atheism with materialism, deserves whatever he gets.

That would be like replacing a staple gun with a carrot.
WTF are you talking about?

[iambiguous]

Or, sure, insist it is only "ideas" about these things that count in a philosophy forum.

I insist therefore that that’s the case. In one way or another. All the time. Always.

Oh, I didn't know that you insisted on it. That changes everything of course.

Next up: Immanuel Cant insists you will burn in Hell for all of eternity if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior.



Who would have figured just insisting something you believe about God makes it true?

On the other hand, how many of us live in Missouri?



AJ in a nutshell:

"In the end it is dishonesty that breeds the sterile intellectualism of contemporary speculation. A man who is not certain of his mental integrity shuns the vital problems of human existence; at any moment the great laboratory of life may explode his little lie and leave him naked and shivering in the face of truth. So he builds himself an ivory tower of esoteric tomes and professionally philosophical periodicals; he is comfortable only in their company...he wanders farther and farther away from his time and place, and from the problems that absorb his people and his century. The vast concerns that properly belong to philosophy do not concern him...He retreats into a little corner, and insulates himself from the world under layer and layer of technical terminology. He ceases to be a philosopher, and becomes an epistemologist." Will Durant

Ironically enough, Durant noted this in his book, The Story of Philosophy.