AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

We would like to draw your attention to a new website which replaces Agnostic Forums, and which covers a much wider range than our own AgnosticWeb. There are online discussions, personal presentations, features on agnosticism itself, and the organizers are hoping to set up "chapters" in locations all over the world, where agnostics can meet. Any events or new features will be announced on this thread. -The link is http://www.agnosticsinternational.net/forum/-***********-Posted by Romansh on 18.12.2012:-A quick update on your sister organization Agnostics International.-Last week or there abouts we inadvertently let our domain lapse and could not regain it.-So as of yesterday we are open again for business under the brand new domain of:-www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum as opposed to .net-A warning to admins/webmasters everywhere ;)

14030 views

What in the world is going on. Someone please contact me. All i get at agnostics international is some gator thing....

12830 views

What in the world is going on. Someone please contact me. All i get at agnostics international is some gator thing....
Hi The link seems to be working now. We are moving over to a new server Hostgator. I'm glad you got a message telling you of the change over.-We apologize for the inconvenience - you know the wrong kind of snow on the lines.-rom

12628 views

Sorry for the inconvenience-Although the link above is working just fine for me, others appear to be experiencing problems.-We'll let you know as soon as this temporary glitch has been resolved-rom

12523 views

OK - -try this link - let us know if it works
http://www.agnosticsinternational.net/forum/-Thanks
rom

12727 views

Got it now. Thought we were playing hide and seek. Thanks for the reply.

12565 views

Actually the original also works now as well.
http://www.agnosticsinternational.net
go figure - the high priests fixed it
rom

12580 views

There's a poll and discussion on New Humanist and twitter -http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2011/05/agnosticism-is.html#disqus_thread-Asking for answers to the question:-Agnosticism is ... ?-And gettinmg all sorts of contradictory answers.

--
GPJ

12429 views

GEORGE: There's a poll and discussion on New Humanist and twitter -http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2011/05/agnosticism-is.html#disqus_thread-Asking for answers to the question:
Agnosticism is ... ?
And getting all sorts of contradictory answers.-Thanks for this, George. Great fun! You get the gold medal for your link to the polling booth photograph. I shan't give away the punchline.-I like your own witty aphorism: "Agnosticism is...pointlessly keeping an open mind on the infinitely improbable", though I don't quite understand why you should think it pointless to keep an open mind on the infinite improbability of blind chance assembling the mechanisms for life and evolution. Perhaps you were thinking of something else.-As I see it, distinctions are clear: theists believe in a god (or gods), atheists believe there is no god (or gods), and agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in a god (or gods). However, there are many types of agnostic, just as there are many types of theist and atheist, so it's hardly surprising that there are differences of opinion. But I think a lot of the contradictions in the poll come from the way non-agnostics look at agnostics, not the way agnostics look at themselves.-In all seriousness, your reference to open-mindedness seems to me a key factor. I don't know of any agnostic extremists or fundamentalists who go round killing others for not sharing their scepticism. Nor do I know of agnostics who sneer at and seek to undermine other people's beliefs (though we are not above teasing our atheist friends for not acknowledging their own quasi-religious faith in chance!) The only intolerance I have found among agnostics is intolerance of intolerance, and I would regard that as something to be admired, not denigrated.-My answer to the question, however, is: Agnosticism is neither believing nor disbelieving in a god or gods. (This of course is not the original definition of the term as Huxley coined it, which is the belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not.)-All other descriptions ... including what I have said above ... entail subjective value judgements and have nothing to do with what agnosticism "is".- ************************************-P.S. George, I would greatly value your views on the subject of "intelligent cells" (as opposed to random mutations and divine pre-programming) which is currently being discussed on the "Innovation and Speciation" thread.

12550 views

For this particular agnostic it means questioning the very meaning of "knowing".-I can only assume there are others that actually "know" stuff.

12627 views

Julian Baggini thinks "the God wars" have become stale, and need to be freshened up - he's going to say how next week.-http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/07/how-not-to-be-a-dogmatic-fundamentalist?CMP=twt_gu-"What's needed to clear this issue up is to think through where the boundary lies between legitimate strong belief and dogmatic fundamentalism. There clearly is such a boundary, but by talking as if there were none, religious ultra-liberals and agnostics (the "fluffy brigade" as I affectionately call them) manage to make it look as though the only reasonable position to take in this debate is one where the sole passionate commitment is to a lack of passionate commitment."-I'm sure dhw belongs to the fluffy brigade.

--
GPJ

12159 views

Julian Baggini thinks "the God wars" have become stale, and need to be freshened up - he's going to say how next week.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/07/how-not-to-be-a-dogmatic-fun... 
> I'm sure dhw belongs to the fluffy brigade.-Very strong article. Thank you once again. Dhw is not fluffy; he is dogmatically on his picket fence!

11944 views

Dhw is not fluffy; he is dogmatically on his picket fence!-The standard agnostic reply is the view is so much better from the fence.-Nevertheless I think the metaphor is little mixed up - I would argue that it is the agnostics who are in the garden (including Eden) and it is the theists, atheists, deists and dare I say it panentheists who are sitting uncomfortably on their various climbed pickets.-
This is in jest - sort of

11477 views

Dhw is not fluffy; he is dogmatically on his picket fence!
> 
> The standard agnostic reply is the view is so much better from the fence.
> 
> Nevertheless I think the metaphor is little mixed up - I would argue that it is the agnostics who are in the garden (including Eden) and it is the theists, atheists, deists and dare I say it panentheists who are sitting uncomfortably on their various climbed pickets.
> 
> 
> This is in jest - sort of -It makes for a big set of backyards in your neighborhood. My feet are planted firmly on my philosophic ground! Panentheists are into everything. That should be obvious. Scoobydoo, see we do have fun.

11379 views

It makes for a big set of backyards in your neighborhood. My feet are planted firmly on my philosophic ground! Panentheists are into everything. That should be obvious. Scoobydoo, see we do have fun.-Well it's just one big one really David.-I suppose it all boils downn to how we handle the words know, believe and think. Of course there are few others, including the biggie faith.-Now if someone actually holds a belief in say a panentheistic god, then more power to them. Philosophically speaking I make a valiant if ineffective effort to hold no beliefs, regarding the existence or non existence of gods. Plus a few other things that we can find in this universe.

11465 views

ROMANSH: I would argue that it is the agnostics who are in the garden (including Eden) and it is the theists, atheists, deists and dare I say it panentheists who are sitting uncomfortably on their various climbed pickets.-I must confess I'd never thought of it this way, but I quite like it. Those who have made their decision ... i.e. theists and atheists ... may (and sometimes do) look down from their lofty heights on their opponents to the right and on the don't-knows to the left. But they are always vulnerable ... to new discoveries, to new experiences, and of course to all the arguments that undermine their subjective beliefs. At any moment, your theist/atheist may fall from his perch. Only the agnostic has nowhere to fall. I wouldn't call it Eden, but then I don't believe Eden ever existed!-ROMANSH: I suppose it all boils down to how we handle the words know, believe, and think. Of course there are a few others, including the biggie faith.-I can't remember if you took part in our epistemology discussion a year ago, but you might be interested in certain definitions we agreed on. Absolute truth was unattainable, but then came:-Knowledge: "information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it."-Belief: "information which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on its truth."-I see faith simply as a strong belief, often in a religious context, which doesn't require any further definition.

11320 views

I wouldn't call it Eden, but then I don't believe Eden ever existed!
>
I too am skeptical of a literal interpretaion of the Garden of Eden story. As a metaphor though it is quite interesting. Joseph Campbell explains it nicely.-"That is to say, put yourself back in the position of paradise before you thought in terms of good and evil. You don't hear that much from the pulpits." 
Here he is trying to say the old testament is advising us not to think in dualistic terms.
 -> Knowledge: "information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it."
> 
> Belief: "information which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on its truth."
> 
> I see faith simply as a strong belief, often in a religious context, which doesn't require any further definition.-I think it is useful to to agree on definitions. Helps with clarity of discourse. But the question remains have we defined say "knowledge" into existence? And does this remain a thought. I understand this is solipsism gone mad - but this I suspect is at the very core of agnosticism.

11632 views

DHW: Knowledge: "information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it."
Belief: "information which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on its truth."
I see faith simply as a strong belief, often in a religious context, which doesn't require any further definition.-ROMANSH: I think it is useful to agree on definitions. Helps with clarity of discourse. But the question remains have we defined say "knowledge" into existence? And does this remain a thought. I understand this is solipsism gone mad - but this I suspect is at the very core of agnosticism.-I don't think solipsism is at the core of agnosticism. On my commonsense level of thinking, as opposed to the grand philosophical level on which nothing can be "known", I have no trouble at all believing that you and other people exist, and think thoughts, and have beliefs. I feel I have sufficient evidence to take this great plunge, and I even suspect that your family and friends and those who are in direct personal contact with you would say they "know" you exist. But I don't have sufficient evidence to believe or disbelieve in a god or gods. Have we defined knowledge "into existence"? Again, it depends what level we're on. If by "knowledge" you mean objective truth, no, but objective truth is unattainable. My definition of knowledge does not entail objective truth, and even allows for changes in the general consensus. Once upon a time, everyone "knew" the sun went round the Earth. So I'd say yes, we've defined knowledge into existence as an intersubjective consensus, whereas the core of agnosticism is the subjective view that there is not sufficient evidence to support belief either way.

11224 views

Sure common sense OK.
As an agnostic i have no problem believing other people exist.
This is an implicit assumption I make all the time.-Just tell me how I can prove it and therefore know it.
Rom

11272 views

ROMANSH: Sure common sense OK.
As an agnostic I have no problem believing other people exist.
This is an implicit assumption I make all the time.
Just tell me how I can prove it and therefore know it.-There is no way round the epistemological problem of hierarchies. If by knowledge you mean cast-iron certainty (objective truth), give up. The common sense level is not my invention ... it goes way, way back. Aristotle was for it and Plato was against it. But here's my commonsense answer, for what it's worth:-By means of sensual perception, communication, experience, I have evidence that my wife, children, relatives, friends, acquaintances, people in the street and shops exist. Every encounter of whatever kind is evidence that their existence is independent of mine (even if linked by circumstances), although my views of them are subjective. Perception, communication, experience also provide evidence that my existence is real to them. I have found no evidence whatsoever that this conclusion is based on an illusion. Not one shred. The only "evidence" I have is from philosophers and their unproven theories. In the presence of concrete evidence, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am therefore satisfied that I and other people exist.-We now have to define "know", and you have not said whether or not you accept my definition: "information which is accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it."
 
According to that definition, I know that these other people (of whom I am aware and who are aware of me) exist, and they know I exist. There may, however, be cases in which the evidence is not so clear-cut, in which case I may say I believe rather than know. My definition of belief is: "information which individuals accept as being true although there is no general consensus on its truth."-We can play philosophical games till kingdom come. What evidence do you have that I am an illusion? (And is it worth your looking for it?!)

11663 views

Whether I agree with your definition or not is sort of irrelevant. So long as I understand how you are using the word is more important.-Having said that, the knowledge that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected to sits at God's right hand would be different in the southern states of the USA than in say in taoist parts of China. - 
> We can play philosophical games till kingdom come. What evidence do you have that I am an illusion? (And is it worth your looking for it?!)-Tonnes. If you look at our capabilities of perception - they are not what they seem.-Free will alone is one of the most non sensical aspects of our perception.

11340 views


> Free will alone is one of the most non sensical aspects of our perception.-I feel free as a bird. Why am I wrong?

11227 views

A quick update on your sister organization Agnostics International-Last week or there abouts we inadvertently let our domain lapse and could not regain it.-So as of yesterday we are open again for business under the brand new domain of:-www.agnosticsinternational.org/forum as opposed to .net-A warning to admins/webmasters everywhere ;)

10622 views

GEORGE: Julian Baggini thinks "the God wars" have become stale, and need to be freshened up - he's going to say how next week.-http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/07/how-not-to-be-a-dogmatic-fun...-"What's needed to clear this issue up is to think through where the boundary lies between legitimate strong belief and dogmatic fundamentalism. There clearly is such a boundary, but by talking as if there were none, religious ultra-liberals and agnostics (the "fluffy brigade" as I affectionately call them) manage to make it look as though the only reasonable position to take in this debate is one where the sole passionate commitment is to a lack of passionate commitment."-GEORGE: I'm sure dhw belongs to the fluffy brigade.-Well, I'd rather be fluffy than huffy and puffy, but thank you for this stimulating contribution, George. Now read on:-BAGGINI: What is really objectionable is not conviction and clarity, but the abuse, mockery and refusal to acknowledge any weakness that signals a lack of openness to the possibility of being wrong, and sadly, this is all too common.-It certainly is, and it characterizes the militants on both sides, whereas we agnostics are by definition permanently open to being wrong, because one of the alternatives we are unable to believe in (there is or there is not a God) has to be right. Come to think of it, George, when did you last admit that you might be wrong? Now read on again:-BAGGINI: That's why the fluffy brigade can be as guilty as engaging in pointless argument as their supposedly more aggressive peers. It may appear respectful and polite not to challenge your opponent at all, but in reality, all that means is a refusal to engage with the deep differences between you. As Frank Furedi puts it in his latest book, "instead of serving as a way of responding to differences in views, tolerance has become a way of not taking them seriously."-If you don't challenge and you don't take either side seriously, you haven't even entered the debate. That's not agnosticism and it's not tolerance. It's apathy. Since, George, you have pointed the finger of fluff at me, let me assure you that I would not have written the "brief guide" or set up this website if I had been lacking in passionate commitment, but the commitment is to the issues, not to any one answer. Nor should my "tolerance" be equated with not taking your own faith in chance (which you hate to acknowledge) as seriously as I take David's faith in a UI. Now read on again:-BAGGINI: There is no automatic virtue in softly advocating accommodating beliefs, nor any vice in strongly advocating clear, divisive opinions. What really matters is that whatever we believe, however strongly we believe it, we genuinely engage. It's because that happens so rarely that the God wars have become so stale, and we desperately need to freshen them up.-Firstly, in my view the God wars are anything but stale. Proselytizing atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Pullman and Co. have done the world a great philosophical service in putting the debate on the front pages, while the blinkered Catholics, the divided Protestants, and the fundamentalist Muslims also hit the headlines by blundering or blasting their way through one controversy after another. Secondly, I doubt if you will ever get the really strong believers on either side to "engage", other than through the sort of public discussions to which we ourselves are making our own minuscule though, in my view, unfluffy contribution. But let's wait and see how Baggini proposes to freshen things up.

11735 views

This seems to be Julian Baggini's continuation of his argument:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/21/science-atheism-humanism-rel...

But I can't say he has reinvigorated the "god wars". He appears to argue that secular humanists and atheists may have as much trouble with science in future as religious believers have had. However as a rationalist-empiricist whose views are based on the scientific evidence I can't see how there can be any conflict for me. Baggini himself is to me a fluffy-minded philosopher who thinks in vague general concepts. I suspect that if he defined his terms precisely in the first place he would find that there is no problem.

--
GPJ

11871 views

This seems to be Julian Baggini's continuation of his argument:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/21/science-atheism-humanism-rel...

But I can't say he has reinvigorated the "god wars". He appears to argue that secular humanists and atheists may have as much trouble with science in future as religious believers have had. However as a rationalist-empiricist whose views are based on the scientific evidence I can't see how there can be any conflict for me. Baggini himself is to me a fluffy-minded philosopher who thinks in vague general concepts. I suspect that if he defined his terms precisely in the first place he would find that there is no problem.

George, I have to agree with you. Look at the final concluding paragraph:

"The upshot of this and last week's argument is that science is not such a large problem for religion as atheists suppose, but not such a small problem as the religious suppose, and not as much of an ally to humanists as they suppose. All of which means that science just isn't as central to the disputes between believers and atheists as almost everyone seems to suppose. It's time to move on."

As you know, I have no trouble with science, in fact having used it to rationally conclude there is a greater power. And the Catholic Church, especially in the Jesuit order does science research and adapts the findings to their teachings.

11780 views

GEORGE: This seems to be Julian Baggini's continuation of his argument:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/21/science-atheism-humanism-rel...

But I can't say he has reinvigorated the "god wars".

For once, George and I are in complete agreement! David has already quoted the hollow conclusion, with its portentous final admonition: â€œAll of which means that science just isn't as central to the disputes between believers and atheists as almost everyone seems to suppose. It's time to move on.â€ Move on to what? Where is the promised freshener?

GEORGE: Baggini himself is to me a fluffy-minded philosopher who thinks in vague general concepts. I suspect that if he defined his terms precisely in the first place he would find that there is no problem.

A delightful turn of phrase and tables, George. With his neutrality, Baggini is clearly a â€œfluffyâ€ agnostic (his own term) in the making. But he has neither the courage to admit it, nor the desire to â€œengageâ€ (again his own word) in any but the vaguest generalizations.

However, the responses from George and David really canâ€™t be allowed to pass without comment:

GEORGE: ...as a rationalist-empiricist whose views are based on the scientific evidence I can't see how there can be any conflict for me.

DAVID: I have no trouble with science, in fact having used it to rationally conclude there is a greater power.

I see both of you as equally rational, and your views as being based not on the scientific evidence, but on your interpretation of the scientific evidence (or to be more precise, lack of it).

Davidâ€™s post contains the perfect sting in the tail: â€œAnd the Catholic Church, especially in the Jesuit order does science research and adapts the findings to their teachings.â€ That sums up the topsy-turvy situation pretty well. If conversely both sides adapted their teachings to scientific findings (or, again to be more precise, to what science has not found), they would turn to agnosticism! But of course both sides are perfectly entitled to their non-scientific beliefs.

11980 views

The Pope has invited Agnostics to meet him in Assisi:

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/10/the_pope_invites_agnostics_to.php

Will dhw be going?

--
GPJ

11935 views

GEORGE: The Pope has invited Agnostics to meet him in Assisi:

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/10/the_pope_invites_agnostics_to.php

Will dhw be going?

Thanks for this, George. When I read the Popeâ€™s statement, I gasped. Apparently agnostics are people to whom â€œthe gift of faith has not been given, but who are nevertheless on the lookout for truth, searching for God [...] They suffer from his absence and yet are inwardly making their way towards him, inasmuch as they seek truth and goodness.â€ Yes, we are on the lookout for truth; no, we are not searching for God; no, we are not suffering from his absence; and no, the search for truth and goodness is not synonymous with making oneâ€™s way towards God. This combination of ignorance and arrogance is breathtaking. Jason Rosenhouse has quite rightly ripped the whole statement to shreds, as well as pointing out the innate hypocrisy in Herr Ratzingerâ€™s idealized image of his church.

One despairs that such blinkered people have so much influence. A meeting with the Pope would probably be as pointless as a meeting with Professor Dawkins.

11803 views

This seems to be Julian Baggini's continuation of his argument:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/21/science-atheism-humanism-rel...

But I can't say he has reinvigorated the "god wars". He appears to argue that secular humanists and atheists may have as much trouble with science in future as religious believers have had. However as a rationalist-empiricist whose views are based on the scientific evidence I can't see how there can be any conflict for me. Baggini himself is to me a fluffy-minded philosopher who thinks in vague general concepts. I suspect that if he defined his terms precisely in the first place he would find that there is no problem.

I'm quite late to this discussion, but here's my 2 pence...

As someone who works with Godel's incompleteness theorem on my back, the resounding implication for science is this:

1. Einstein is right and all attempts at a "Theory of Everything" are flawed from the beginning. Russell & Whitehead's failure in axiomatically defining and unifying all of mathematics coupled with the incompleteness theorem that explained why the endeavor failed point to the inevitable conclusion that physics is doomed as well.

This means that there will always be a divide between relativistic & quantum mechanics due to the limits of experiment. As a case in point there's some consternation in computational biology that some systems are so incredibly complex that humans might eventually have to simply *trust* computers are giving them the right answers. (One equation for a cell is a linear sequence of 1.5M terms.) One scientist would take a lifetime understanding a relationship THAT dense. The problem for atheists and agnostics like myself is that faith will eventually creep in--as long as mathematical correctness proofs don't exist for each computational scenario. (Which at least, might make mathematics a lucrative profession outside of military uses...) But the direct challenge is that science itself will be faith based for all those not initiated into the esoteric world of program-correctness and theorem-proving.

As to Baggini's defining his concepts succinctly... I have yet to see a succinctly worded concept that actually explained the concept wholly. We need to learn to live with a certain amount of ambiguity...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

11709 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum