Problems with this section (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Thursday, October 29, 2009, 18:05 (5503 days ago) @ Frank Paris

Frank: To me agnosticism means, not that you "don't believe" this and you "don't believe" that, but that you just don't know.
You then go on to say: Strictly speaking, I don't know either, whether there was a designer or whether it all happened naturally.-In my experience of these discussions, we do need to speak "strictly", but I'll try to keep this as brief as possible because we're being side-tracked. Of course Huxley's agnosticism meant the belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists, but nowadays we tend to accept that such matters are impossible to "know" anyway. The word itself is a problem ... hence epistemology. That's why Matt insists that science is about "very likely maybes" and not "absolute truth". Even Dawkins admits that he doesn't "know", and so explains "why there almost certainly is no God". If, then, I say I don't know whether there is a designer or not, I'm in the same boat as everyone else. We can only talk in terms of belief or non-belief. An atheist believes there is no God. My agnostic position is that I don't believe there is a God and I don't believe there isn't a God. I see no "incoherence" in this or in the fact that I'm unable to believe in either explanation of life (design/accident). It would be incoherent if I said I believed in both. -A similar problem has arisen in the discussion between Matt and David under "Lost Marbles". Matt takes the statement (which I'm sure David never made): "Life is so complex, it must be designed." He asks, "How do you know it's designed?" 'Must' is as absolute as 'know', and so all kinds of philosophical problems arise. But take the statement: "Life is so complex that I believe it was designed", and you can get down to the evidence in support of the belief instead of the epistemological implications of the first statement.-Frank: I didn't have faith until I had a mystical experience.
I very much hope that eventually you will trust us enough to tell us more. I myself am extremely interested in such experiences. BBella has told us about some of hers, and we have had discussions about near-death, out-of-body, and other "paranormal" experiences.-Frank: Now I see that you're about to take me to task for putting faith before theology.
I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I think faith has to come before theology, but I become sceptical when, for instance, scientists twist their discoveries to fit in with their existing theism or atheism, and so I wonder if you aren't doing the same with your theology. That's why I keep asking my questions, because although for you "it all added up to an entirely coherent theology", I'm struggling to latch onto its coherence.-For instance, you think that we "will have scientific explanations for the origin of life and that a "designer" isn't necessary," by which I assume you mean that life came about by accident and not design. (I say that, because I think scientists may eventually explain how it happened, but that won't tell us whether or not it was designed.) This is a matter of faith and, intriguingly, is as crucial to your concept of God as it is to the atheist belief that there is no God. Atheists need the theory to show that God is not necessary, and you need it to relieve God of his responsibility for the creation of suffering. This may explain why you're so anxious to play down what I see as the difficulties.-I wrote that I was surprised your world was "only physical" and you thought I was "short-changing the physical". By 'only' I meant 'exclusively', not 'merely', and was simply trying not to repeat the word. The reason for my surprise was that you attach great importance to mystical experiences, which are not normally associated with the physical world. I went on to ask if God has brain cells, and although you love such questions, you have not answered this one. If the world is exclusively physical, as you believe, then your mystical experiences, our own consciousness, and God's infinite consciousness must arise exclusively from physical sources too. Materialists believe that human consciousness arises from the cerebral cortex. My question is therefore a serious one: if the world is exclusively physical, what is the physical source of God's infinite consciousness? -My final paragraph was meant to be a joke! Sorry to have confused the issue. I had "taken you to task" for claiming that science had refuted the notion of some kind of being "out there". You accepted that you'd used the wrong word, but still thought science could refute the idea of mice eating lions in a different universe. Instead of quoting the common example of Bertrand Russell's orbiting teapot, I thought I'd have some fun (which is not unwelcome on this forum). If you want the point put seriously: Science cannot refute what it cannot test, and it cannot test the existence of God any more than it can test my other-universe fantasies or ... if you prefer ... Russell's orbiting teapot.