The Agnostic’s Exit Strategy (Agnosticism)
by Cary Cook 
, Thursday, June 19, 2008, 09:33 (6000 days ago)
I'm sure DHW can help me with this. It's an effort to formulate a definitive final statement of spiritual location for agnostics ... updateable of course. - Given the uncertainty of afterlife and all that God business, what are the possibilities, probabilities, and how much of life's resources should be bet on each? - Possibility 1: no afterlife Whoever dies with the most toys wins. Or possibly whoever had the most loving relationships, if you're into that warm fuzzy stuff. In any case, whoever had the greatest ratio of happiness over unhappiness for the duration is the winner. (My money on Heff) But nobody will know who won, or have reason to care, including the winner. Besides winning, the question, "Was it worth it?" comes to mind. But after the fact, even that won't matter. - Possibility 2: afterlife More questions arise: Reincarnation or some kind of eternal body? Since an eternally living body is hard to imagine, I bet on reincarnation. Agree? Reincarnation here, or some other planet? No way to judge probabilities. - Worthwhile or not? What determines whether it's worthwhile or not? How worthwhile or not will it be? And what determines that? No way to judge probabilities. I propose we assume worthwhile life is possible, and ask what criteria determine who gets what? Possibilities: ___1. luck ___2. judgment - If luck, there's no point in investing any present-life resources in the outcome. If judgment, then on what is it based? ___1. kissing the Judge's ass ___2. justice If kissing the Judge's ass, who's the Judge? One of the Earth-religion guys? If so, which one? If not, why care until you get there? (Pascal goes here, but I don't buy his argument, see essay: www.sanityquestpublishing.com/essays/afterPascal.html ). - If justice, then it makes sense to do enough good stuff to outweigh your bad stuff. In fact, it would make sense to invest as much as you can afford ... if you knew there was justice. But since you can't know, comfort zone becomes relevant. - If you don't do enough good stuff, there's always Jesus, if you don't mind living forever with a bunch of Christians... IF Christianity is true, which you don't know. But then if Christianity is true, it wouldn't matter how much good stuff you do, because Christianity says everybody's bad and deserves hell, but just worship Jesus forever, and you're forgiven ... which throws it back into the ass-kissing category. - Fair analysis?
The Agnostic’s Exit Strategy
Cary is trying to "formulate a definitive final statement of spiritual location for agnostics". - Behind the inimitable carycookiness of your style ... which I really enjoy by the way ... there's a lot of meaty stuff for discussion, raising several major issues. I'd much rather we spent our time on these than on arguing over definitions, but we can do both, so I'll get back to you later on the other thread. - Points for discussion: - 1) "how much of life's resources should be bet on each [of the possibilities]?" - The idea of the bet ... your own development of Pascal ... is a problem for me because of the fact that we disagree over the nature/definition of belief. I can't force myself to "believe" something (= have an inner conviction that it is true) just because it might be to my advantage to do so. It would be great if there was a fatherly God who would forgive me for doubting him, would reward me for my good deeds with an eternity of bliss, and would compensate all victims of life's cruelties with a similar reward. That, I presume, is the "just afterlife" you are betting your socks on. But for me there is no bet. Nor is there a "strategy". There is only the question: could it be true? - 2) No afterlife: "whoever has the greatest ratio of happiness over unhappiness for the duration is the winner." Not sure about "the winner", but otherwise yes. Your question "was it worth it?" is more helpful. Everyone has to decide for himself, and your ratio will certainly be a decisive factor in settling the answer. You mention "the most toys" and "loving relationships" (though "warm fuzzy stuff" suggests a disturbing cynicism) as possible sources of happiness. This might be a fruitful topic, especially if linked to that of ethics. - 3) Afterlife: you bet on reincarnation. I am totally unaware of any previous life, and as I find it very doubtful that my individual history would have begun with me if there is reincarnation, I don't see much point in the concept. If I'm to take another form after I die but I don't know I was me, where's it going to get me? I might as well disappear (no afterlife). I find it more likely that if there is an afterlife, I'll be a spirit me, retaining the identity that has been contained within my now dead physical body. - 4) If a worthwhile afterlife is possible, you ask: "what criteria determine who gets what?" And the possibilities are 1. luck, 2. judgment. But you rightly ask who is the judge, and if the judge has different criteria of justice from mine, I'd regard myself as unlucky (and the judge would regard me as an arrogant so-and-so). You say that if justice is the criterion, "it would make sense to invest as much as you can afford [in doing good stuff]". I don't like this idea of calculatedly investing, just as I don't like the bet. I live my life according to what I consider to be ethical standards (see the humanist code I quoted under 'How do agnostics live', on 5 June at 21.02), and I do so because I've found that they help me to feel as happy as I can reasonably expect to feel. You rightly say we can't know if there is justice, but I would specify that if there is justice, we can't know if God's concept of justice is the same as ours. "Kissing the judge's ass" won't work if the judge knows why we're doing it. "By their deeds ye shall know them" ... which is not actually what Matthew wrote, but I wish he had ... seems a much fairer way of finding favour. - Your take on Christianity ("worship Jesus for ever, and you're forgiven ... which throws it back into the ass-licking category") is not quite how I would phrase it, but until our Christian friends can convince me that they put humanistic considerations before prescriptions laid down by subjective interpretation of man-made texts, I will go along with it. - To sum it all up: if there is no afterlife, I agree that the ratio of happiness to unhappiness will decide whether life was worth it. If there is an afterlife, I personally would favour the spirit hypothesis, but I would not change my way of life to fit in with any particular concept of God's justice. I simply hope that it will be the same as mine. I also hope that we will be provided with an explanation and compensation for what I see as the injustices imposed on humanity by the systems God created, and also compensation for the victims of man's systems, since these derive at least in part from God's. Hope, however, does not lead me to belief (my definition, not yours).
The Agnostic’s Exit Strategy
by Cary Cook , Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 00:52 (5995 days ago) @ dhw
I like you, DHW, but I don't see how we can be of any further use to each other if we can't agree on something as basic as belief. You see what direction I'm going, so if you don't want to go that direction, there's no point in continuing together. Let me know if you change your mind.
The Agnostic’s Exit Strategy
Cary: "I like you, DHW, but I don't see how we can be of any further use to each other if we can't agree on something as basic as belief." - I like you too, Cary, and am quite shocked by your ultimatum. I would say that we are somewhere around 80% in agreement on most areas of the subject, but where all of us can be of use to each other is precisely in those areas where we disagree. One learns nothing from agreement. - There is a clash between us on what does and doesn't constitute belief. You have tried to explain your definition, and I have tried to explain why I'm not happy with it. If you won't talk to me any more unless I accept your definition, I shall sadly have to accept a parting of the ways, but I would much prefer to continue the dialogue in the hope of clarification. - Specifically, I say: "I don't know which of the alternatives [God/no God] is true, and so I cannot believe either", to which you reply: "This is totally erroneous by either definition of belief." For you, belief comes into play if there is more than 50% and less than 100% likelihood. As an example, you offer this: "You don't know that you will pick an ace out of a deck of 52 cards, but you necessarily believe1 that you won't." As you only have a 1 in 13 chance of picking an ace, I'd say the degree of improbability is such that you have every right to be convinced. The example I gave, though, was nowhere near as clear-cut: the weather forecast is a 51% chance of rain. Would you then actually say to people (without going into definitions) that you believe it's going to rain? My problem is that I can't pin belief down to a particular degree of likelihood (51% plus), but I can't give you the figure at which possibility or even probability might turn into conviction. - However, I'm happy to compromise and say: OK, the odds for and against the existence of God are precisely 50/50, and for that reason I can't choose between the options. Will that enable us to stay on speaking terms?
The Agnostic’s Exit Strategy
by Cary Cook , Wednesday, June 25, 2008, 01:49 (5994 days ago) @ dhw
Let's try this. You define belief. I'll point out the defects or unclarity in your definition until you have a clear and philosophically stable definition ... of the actual existing concept, not "what it is to you". If we're talking about what an actual existing concept IS, I can help you figure it out. But if you just want to talk about what A, B, C, etc. are "to you", I couldn't care less. I'm not interested in learning your subjective language. I discuss objective reality in order to help me (or someone else) understand objective reality better. - I can understand why you might not think of belief as an objective concept, because it's actually two objective concepts, as I pointed out. And I admit that both concepts exist only in minds, but they are both objective in the same sense that any number is an objective concept, even though it exists only in minds. Probability is also an objective concept even though it exists only in minds. It means between 50% & 100% likelihood. Conviction is a subjective concept. Though everyone has a vague idea of what it means, any attempt to draw a line between conviction and non-conviction is arbitrary. (I'm obviously not talking about legal conviction, which is another concept ... an objective one.) - So if you want to talk about objective reality, I'm extremely competent at it. If you want to talk about what terms are to you, I'm not interested. What's it gonna be?
The Agnostic’s Exit Strategy
Cary: "If you want to talk about objective reality, I'm extremely competent at it. If you want to talk about what terms are to you, I'm not interested. What's it gonna be?" - Not for the first time, I find your line of thought difficult to follow. In any discussion, our only tool is language, and since that tool is defective, we frequently have to define what we ... as subjective users ... actually mean by the terms we're using. I admire your enterprise and ingenuity in trying to compile a "concept clarifier", and I've found it useful, but your definitions (e.g. of belief) only tell me what these concepts mean to you, and your terms are every bit as subjective as mine. You've kindly invited me to offer my own definition of belief, but this is what I did under the ironically titled thread BELIEF is not complicated. We discussed it then, particularly in postings from 1 June to 3 June, at which point I suggested we close the thread. If you really want to reopen it, I'm game, but if your precondition is for me to accept that your definitions are "clear and philosophically stable" and mine are merely subjective and therefore of no interest, there seems to be little point. - I have another problem with this discussion, however, because although we frequently have to define what we mean, definition in itself was not the original purpose of this particular dialogue. You opened the thread with a number of potentially very productive themes: you wanted to formulate a statement of "spiritual location for agnostics", and raised issues like what makes life worthwhile, reincarnation, luck versus judgment, who is the judge, the "ass-licking" component of Christianity. I responded to these in the hope of a further exchange of ideas (with you and others), but instead we've gone off at a linguistic tangent. It's as if I told you that your house was on fire, and you criticized me for making an inaccurate statement, because it's not actually your house ... you haven't finished paying the mortgage, and therefore it belongs at least in part to the building society. So it's goodbye to the house ... or in our context, goodbye to God/no God etc. ... and hello again to definitions. Couldn't we just get back to matters of life and death?
The Agnostic’s Exit Strategy
by Cary Cook , Thursday, June 26, 2008, 03:41 (5993 days ago) @ dhw
There is no point in discussing anything until we're speaking the same language. I'm not convinced that you know what objective & subjective mean. - Please offer definitions of these terms as you understand them, and answer thee questions: - What is an objective concept? + examples - What is a subjective concept? + examples
The Agnostic’s Exit Strategy
Cary has asked me to define objective and subjective, and to say what I think constitutes an objective/subjective concept, with examples. - By objective I understand existing independently of the human mind. By subjective I understand dependent on the human mind. - An objective concept would be a pig, the sun, a chair. - A subjective concept would be cruelty, beauty, worthwhile. - A concept might be both objective and subjective. A migraine might describe the overactivity of, say, histamine and serotonin affecting the arteries (objective), or this pain I get in the head when someone keeps badgering on about definitions when all I want to do is talk about matters relating to life and death (subjective).
The Agnostic’s Exit Strategy
by Cary Cook , Friday, June 27, 2008, 07:25 (5992 days ago) @ dhw
Thank you. This is good, but I'm going to continue probing your epistemology until we're synchronized enough to talk meaningfully about objective reality. And though it may not be as fun as subjective discussion, it's more valuable, because much of it can be figured out and known, rather than just speculated about. - I'm glad you see that a concept can be objective in one sense, and subjective in another. - Do you agree that some concepts may exist only in minds, yet still be objective in the sense that they are not subject to opinion? E.g. numbers - Do you agree that some statements may be about purely mental things, yet still be objective in the sense that they are not subject to opinion? E.g. mathematical equations, valid syllogisms, - Do you agree that statistical probability is objective, though non-statistical probability judgment is subjective? ----------------------------------- Do you disagree with anything I said in my Atheism Definition essay below? - Any rational declarative statement is (ontologically) either true or false. In epistemological terms, a statement known to be true is called certain; a statement known to be false is called impossible (at least in the particular instance denoted by the statement). If you don't know if a statement is true or false, three other epistemological categories are added, making a total of five, which can be listed in terms of percentages of probability (or likelihood if you prefer). - 1.	100% likely = certain 2.	less than 100% and more than 50% likely = probable 3.	50% likely = even probability, or equal chance 4.	less than 50% and more than 0% likely = improbable 5.	0% likely = impossible - These five are the epistemological categories that exist, despite the fact that language (at least English) labels them poorly. e.g. - •	Certainty is sometimes seen as a subset of probability, rather than a separate category. •	Impossibility is sometimes seen as a subset of improbability, rather than a separate category. •	Anything less than 100% likely is called uncertain. •	Anything more than 0% likely is called possible. •	50% likelihood doesn't even have a name in English, so we have to make up terms like "toss up." •	The term, impossible, is ambiguous. It can mean: in this particular instance, or under any circumstances. - And this reveals that all five of the categories can mean: in this particular instance, or under any circumstances. We just have to trust context and common sense to determine which meaning is intended. But setting these language difficulties aside as much as possible, if the truth of proposition X is in question, and the meaning of proposition X is clear, then proposition X is one of the following: - 1.	certain 2.	probable 3.	a toss up 4.	improbable 5.	impossible
The Agnostic’s Exit Strategy
I submitted my answers to Cary's test on subjectivity/objectivity. - Cary: "This is good, but I'm going to continue probing your epistemology until we're synchronized enough to talk meaningfully about objective reality. And though it may not be as fun as subjective discussion, it's more valuable, because much of it can be figured out and known, rather than just speculated about." - I'm delighted to have passed my first examination with a "good", but can't resist pointing out the subjectivity of your claim that things we can figure out and know are more "valuable" than things we can only speculate about. (Ugh, where have all my fellow speculators gone?) - However, like that dreadful Scotsman, I'm tied to the epistemological stake and bear-like I must fight the course. I appreciate the trouble you are taking in order to educate me, Cary. I've studied your list of statements and questions, and am OK with most of it ... possibly even with all of it, but that depends on where you're heading. The one thing I'm uneasy about is your probable/improbable percentages ... because I suspect you're setting me up for a big push on how to define "belief". You have twice ignored my weather forecast question (although I've been scrupulous about answering all your questions), and so in order to prepare the way for possible trouble, let me ask you again: if the weather forecast is a 51% chance of rain, would you actually say to anyone that it's probably going to rain, or that you believe it's going to rain? (If you refuse to answer, would you please tell me why.) - I like your qualification of the term impossible: "we just have to trust context and common sense to determine which meaning is intended." This applies to many of the terms we use, but it does create havoc when it comes to the Herculean task of fixing definitions. I shall wait in suspense for the next stage of my training.
The Agnostic’s Exit Strategy
by Cary Cook , Saturday, June 28, 2008, 04:53 (5991 days ago) @ dhw
if the weather forecast is a 51% chance of rain, would you actually say to anyone that it's probably going to rain, or that you believe it's going to rain? - Yes. It's probably going to rain, and I believe it's going to rain. - But frankly I'm getting tired of this. I'm not going to try to convince you that things we can figure out and know are more valuable than things we can only speculate about. If you don't already know that, I'm obviously wasting my time. I'm done.
The Agnostic’s Exit Strategy
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Friday, June 27, 2008, 20:26 (5991 days ago) @ Cary Cook
I've been following this exchange if only to admire dhw's patient perseverance. - What I don't understand is why there are only five "categories" in Caryan logic: 1. 100% likely = certain 2. less than 100% and more than 50% likely = probable 3. 50% likely = even probability, or equal chance 4. less than 50% and more than 0% likely = improbable 5. 0% likely = impossible - Surely there are 100 categories here (0-1%, 1-2%, 2-3%, ..., 99-100%) if the percentages are worked out accurately to the first whole digit. Of course if they can be worked out correct to the first decimal point then there are 1000 categories. - However placing probabilty values on beliefs or propositions is notoriously difficult, depending on the subject being studied, so I suspect we can only work them out to within much larger tolerances. If the tolerance is 20% then we do get five categories: 0-20%, almost certainly false 20-40%, probably false 40-60%, undecidable 60-80%, probably true 80-100%, almost certainly true. - However, Cary has already dismissed my espousal of "fuzzy logic", of which this is an example.