"I'm astounded by people who want to know the universe when it's hard enough to find your way about Chinatown." - Woody Allen

Random Playlist Song: Trevor Pinnock - The English Concert and Choir: Handel - Messiah - I Know That My Redeemer Liveth (soprano, air)

I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see god.

For now is christ risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that sleep.

***

et makes a case for extreme epistemological agnosticism, and urges us to commit to this stance, which inevitably leads towards epistemological nihilism and the impossibility of discourse:


et: A conviction that one is atheist, incidentally, is merely a faith that God does not exist. How sure are we that a God exists, or for the matter, that it/he/she does not exist, or that whether it exists or not, it is apathetic to the evolving human condition?

Nietzsche's views were, at least in my opinion, more compatible with agnosticism as they were with atheism. The barrier which blocks us from this truth in religion is most analogous to what it is like in quantum mechanics.

To understand the motion in time and space of a given particle, we must be able to observe it. A particle exists by rules collectively described as a wave function. If we observe it, quantum mechanics dictates that this wave function changes (or collapses). But why? For instance, if we examine how a particle moves using light, the energy photons emitted would change the state of the particle, and hence completely alter its state from what it would have been if we did not. Werner Heisenberg concluded that due to the nature of subatomic particles (and observation as it is inherently), we cannot tell for sure exactly where a wave or particle will exist in time and space, but we can, as with particles. This is why, as we learn in chemistry today, that orbitals are regions of density in space which correspond to the probability of finding an electron in it... It's certainly interesting and disappointing that all of quantum mechanics since Max Planck's excellent seminal work has come down to one thing – that inherently, it is impossible to know the true workings of particles by logic. Physics, then, has failed to live up to its name at the soul.

Yet it boils down to one thing – at this time and age, the truth is unknowable, and it is unmeasurable. It is not that we will never know, I am not qualified to make absolute statements like that, and indeed many who have done so in the past have been proven to be wrong.

By doing a measure in a certain way, we can come to different conclusions, because inherently we affect what would truth would theoretically be. And it suits our conclusions, or if it doesn't, we change our beliefs. Sometimes we do measurements deliberately to suit our conclusions, sometimes we do it frankly and with a neutral point of view.

The bigger question is – do we think that we could examine the truths of religion by five senses and logic? If we can, then why, logically, is it impossible for a God to exist; and why is it impossible for a God to not exist?

Assuming that you are right that Christianity is a flawed, fictional belief, why are all the other theistic beliefs in the world inherently wrong, for you to come to the big conclusion that God (or Gods) cannot exist? There is one, all-encompassing truth, but will we ever reach that truth?... But the truth remains to be found.

webmaster: I have a lack of belief in UFOs, Sasquatch, Fairies, the Loc Ness Monster, and a host of other nonsense. I lack belief in them because there is no verifiable evidence that these things exist.

For all your lofty sounding sentences, it is the responsiblity of those making a fantastic claim to prove that claim. You must prove your god. The unbeliever is not obligated to prove his lack of faith.

The whole idea of proving that UFOs don't exist is silly. If I had to disprove every single thing that someone in the world believes in, then I might as well go ahead and believe in every manmade fantasy out there.

Me: I believe in invisible, immaterial, undetectable winged pink bunnies orbiting the Planet Saturn because there is no way to disprove their existence!

et: It's unfair to say that. You reject God on the basis of there being no evidence of it/her/his existence. But, logically, wouldn't it work the other way? By your logic, one could readily accept God – or the tooth fairy – on the basis of there being no evidence that it does not exist. Your beliefs are as absurd as you would perceive a belief in the Tooth Fairy or Santa might be.

"The unbeliever does not have to prove his lack of faith." And why not? A convenient excuse? Some believers don't want to prove their faith either, and that is because he doesn't want the absolute truth to contradict what they think to be truth. Having being so enlightened, surely you're not going to settle for convenient excuses? Why have the belief that God cannot possibly exist if you're not going to justify it? You don't have to prove your beliefs to me, but you have to prove it to yourself.

Don't set standards for people until you set those same standards for yourself. Truth is all-encompassing. This is the basis for the existence of religion and religious beliefs. This is also the basis for the (yours, in particular) belief that no theistic religion is absolutely correct.

You may have talked about attaining truth, but it is my humble opinion – and maybe I am absolutely wrong – that you have neither seeked opinion nor obtained it.

Me: I think it's safe to say that most of us here have weighed the evidence for gods and found it to come up short.

It is impossible, or very hard at the very least, to prove a negative. If you accept the existence of all sorts of entities because there is no evidence that they do not exist... then good luck to you. There is a monster under your bed which disappears whenever you look under it, but comes out to ravish you each night in your sleep. The whole world is full of similarly mysterious objects and entities for which there is no evidence for their non-existence. Absence of proof might not be proof of absence, but it strongly points towards that conclusion.

The unbeliever does not have to prove his lack of faith, just as we do not have to prove our lack of faith in invisible blah blah bunnies (see above comment), but most of us are doubly certain the lack of faith is justified, since we have considered the various evidence and arguments.

ryan: et, unless you can make it clear to us what you mean by "god", then any assertion that he exists has no meaning. An assertion that god exists has neither meaning nor value. I for one have not the foggiest notion what you mean when you say "god". Do you? Who or what is god? What, if anything, are his demands on us? What, if anything, are the penalties for failing to meet his demands? Can you answer any of this, and if you cannot, can you expect to be able to answer any of this in the future? If you arrive at an answer, how can it be verified?

et, the word "god" is gibberish. The word god has no more meaning than the word Bobba-chango, or the word bruhmapunga. Let's define our terms and then proceed.

et: I define God or Gods to be creators. After all, if one does not talk about creators, how are we able to define our existence? This is the central argument behind theism. Einstein, too, famously talked of God, defining it as Spinoza's God, Spinoza being one of the great rationalists of the 19th century.

Agnostics have arguably justifiable proof, instead of just excuses. A person looking for excuses to dodge his understanding and beliefs better is not looking for truth.

For me, quantum physics is the clearest example of the limitations of current human knowledge, but as in typical scientific spirit, I also believe we will overcome that limitation one day. I might be wrong, and if you have a better example (or rebuttal), I would be quite happy to hear it. But we have not found the truth (underlying all of quantum physics, if not all of religion) today.

Agagooga – you explicitly say it is impossible to prove a negative. People have proven negatives with mathematics, but with what we call truth? I, too, feel that nobody to this date has ever done so with a rational argument.

But, having had no proof that solidifies your position as an atheist, wouldn't you better qualify as an agnostic?... People intolerant to new ideas are not simply limited to theists. Also in this group includes atheists, and, quite sadly, those who see themselves as agnostics.

The most important thing QP can teach to anybody in search of the truth: question your beliefs. Even if you're an agnostic and believe that the truth is fundamentally unknown – what if it can be known? This agnostic spirit has driven many quantum physicists to search for that truth; the texts dictate that this cannot be done, but they go ahead and do it anyway.

Me: If one talks about creators, who created the creators? And if no one created the creators, why did the universe need to be created? That is the central point debunking the cosmological argument.

How do you differentiate between "excuses" and "justifiable proof"? I think it's too flippant to claim atheists have the former, but agnostics the latter. I understand the part about quantum physics, but why do you say we have not found the truth about religions? Do you have excuses or justifiable proof? By your criteria, it would seem everyone is intolerant to new ideas. Otherwise, I would like you to qualify and substantiate your sweeping statement. Hell, by definition, all ex-Christians have questioned their beliefs.

I said it is "very hard at the very least" to prove a negative. Some negatives can be proven, but many are essentially impossible to prove, like my undetectable bunnies postulate. Just because you can't justify the non-existence of undetectable bunnies does not mean you think they might exist, or the world would be full of scary yet undetectable entities.

Jim Arvo: I do not believe in god(s) because I have seen no credible evidence for them/it/her/him/whatever. Let's start with that. Now, according to you, it would also be logical to turn that around and say that one could just as well chose to *believe* when there is no evidence *against* a given proposition... [Regarding] the logic of believing based on lack of counter-evidence, here is why that doesn't work. Belief and non-belief are not symmetrical. If you believe nothing, you are at least free of contradictions. If you believe everything, you are riddled with contradictions. If you accept the existence of your god because you have seen no credible counter-evidence, then I presume you also accept the existence of Mithra, Osiris, Isis, Zeus, elves, leprachauns, poltergeists, and little green men living in the core of Pluto. You see, the reason for not accepting things simply because they are not explicitly DIS-proven, is that doing otherwise immediately leads to a complete mess. You would be reduced to a credulous simpleton who accepts the word of Bugs Bunny as readily as that of a competent critically-thinking fellow human. If you nevertheless feel deep down that that is the way toward truth, then I say "good luck" and I bid you adieu.

et: I am pushing an agnostic view... I am not pushing the agenda for either a theistic or atheistic view, because – let me say this clearly if I have not already done so – I do not find myself qualified enough to make a definite statement about the existence or non-existence of a creator. This is what being agnostic is about... being atheists indicates to me that you have definite beliefs, and definite statements of truth; with your arguments, I can challenge my beliefs.

As for what I define God as, it is merely a reference point to talk about a creator in a more convenient denomination; the major religions are monotheistic. This is why Wikipedia groups arguments for theist and atheist articles under Arguments for ____ of God. Obviously, I have read about Agagooga's infinite creators argument, but how are we going to talk about it in simple terms?

I was quite taken aback about what others said about not having an obligation to prove a disbelief. And I'll repeat this again – a disbelief is also a belief. If one is obliged to prove a belief, one is also certainly obliged to prove a disbelief.

Albert Einstein did not believe in quantum physics to his dying day. Yet he could have simply debunked it as rubbish and use that explanation. But Einstein (and other physicists) took the responsibility to publish a paper that turned out to be quantum physics' biggest challenge ever. Even if Einstein was in fact "proven wrong" by experiments over the years, he needn't have bothered. Einstein had very little obligation to prove his disbelief. After all, he is widely regarded to be the 20th century's most prominent, most intelligent physicist, or person, for that matter. But what about lesser people like us?

Agagooga has said on this forum that he has no evidence (evidence as we know it) to back up his atheist faith. Having said that it is "near impossible" to do so could be very well equated to him having a belief that he cannot find evidence of the non-existence of God. Wouldn't that make him an agnostic?

I believe that Agagooga is a rationalist – not all rationalists need be atheists. In fact, a majority of rationalists are agnostics. But if Agagooga is not a rationalist – his support for atheism being bolstered by just faith (which many here have debunked as nonsense), then I will have nothing else to say on this matter. In writing this, I assume most of us here are rationalists.

The difference between an rationalist agnostic and a rationalist atheist is that the atheist has, without any rational backing claims (ironically), come to the conclusion that there is no God. Such a conclusion would be absolutely intolerable to a genuine rationalist, since it has no rational backing. Maybe some here find this to be a perfectly reasonable conclusion; as for me, I think it is spurious.

As for Agagooga's comment about questioning one's beliefs, it is not sufficient to challenge it once (as he did while being disillusioned by his faith), or even in fact a million times. Because the probability of obtaining the truth is so incredibly small, how can we hope to be right after even a billion tries, and for that matter, if we do, how do we know if we are correct? Even if Agagooga has indeed found the truth, however improbable statistically it may be, how about millions of atheists who claim the same? This is, of course, in terms of statistics; maybe they all have found the truth, but I find this incredibly hard to believe.

My answer to this is to continuously challenge our current beliefs; if it does not hold true, renew and find new ones. Challenge it until the point where you are convinced – that is, you have read every single challenge to that belief and debunked all of them – that you are undisputedly correct. This is one of the central teachings, if there should be any, of the agnostic spirit. Many of Bertrand Russell's – one of the best known agnostics – articles encourage the reader, agnostic or otherwise, to challenge his beliefs regularly. That last word should not be forgotten.

The process of challenging one's beliefs, to me, is such a long and tedious one, that we might as well say it is lifelong.I don't know how much older Agagooga is compared to me; I think it is not much, but the fact that he has found "truth" means that he is going to stop challenging his beliefs, and maybe it is a bit of a long shot to say this, but this is quite simply another way to say "I have become narrow-minded". And at such a young age too.

I find that perhaps my idea of "truth" is held with much higher standards that most here. Maybe the truth is much easier to find than I have put it here; I believe this is the main disagreement between us.

ficino: et, to express myself more precisely in response to your message, what's wrong with the atheist saying "as far as I know, there is no god"? That's usually the degree of epistemic certainty we get when, to use your words, we "come to the conclusion" that some matter of fact, as opposed to some analytic and/or tautological proposition, is not the case. Are you such a rigorous skeptic that you suspend judgment in every case where you're tempted to think maybe some purported entity doesn't exist? It would be neat to hear from you how you justify your own conclusions that some X or some Y does not exist, or if you never come to such conclusions, how you function in practical situations. I don't mean cases like "there's no cup on the counter," where we have used the senses to grasp universals "cup" "counter" etc. and then use the senses again to look at the counter. I mean cases like "there are no hippogriffs" when we deny that there are any members of the class "hippogriff". Maybe denial that there is a King of France would be a sure one, too.

et: I believe the beef of what you have said is that we need to have faith to be either atheists or theists. Yet it is this faith that many others on this forum page, or on the whole of this site for that matter, claim not to have, as in Agagooga's original testimonial.

The fact that we support an idea without much or any (difficult to prove a disbelief, as Agagooga said) logical evidence means that it is only held together by faith. Yet this faith is rubbished! If, as I have said earlier, his atheism is held together by faith, I will have nothing more to say on the matter. Certainly Agagooga doesn't say if logic alone will find the truth, but from what I understand from the tone of his replies and his testimony, he has very little regard for faith. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I find that this religion riddle is the most difficult question in the world to answer. In other issues, we know where to start, how to approach, and even what to normally expect. Not religion. Maybe some will hastily answer that God question, but if you do not know the answer, why should you rush into one? Why effectively lie to yourself?... as far as religion goes, I want to be as consistent to those basic agnostic principles of flexibility so that, should I ever get to know the truth, I will recognise, respect and embrace it, no matter how much it contradicts what I consider true, no matter how much it contradicts my beliefs.

Some will point out that it is easier said than done. But nobody has ever said with complete certainty that acquiring the truth was easy.

Jim Arvo: et: "I believe the beef of what you have said is that we need to have faith to be either atheists or theists. Yet it is this faith that many others on this forum page, or on the whole of this site for that matter, claim not to have, as in Agagooga's original testimonial."

That word "faith" gets thrown around a lot, both as a pejorative and as an ideal. Frankly, I don't think it's very well defined. Some people use it in the sense of "confidence", others in the sense of believing despite a lack of evidence (or even despite disconfirming evidence). So, let's look at the statement "It takes faith to be an atheist", which is little more than a cliché that gets tossed out a lot. What is that supposed to mean? That atheism (lacking belief in the unsupported claims of theists) somehow requires an absolute dogmatic *belief* in something? Geeeeez am I tired of arguing against that old red herring. Since theists (apparently) have no evidence to speak of, they try to heard everyone else into their leaky boat, pinning the word "faith" (as a pejorative!) on everybody. It's nonsense. As a general rule I do not accept things without *some* positive evidence; that's not faith, no matter how you define faith. Theists are welcome to their leaky boat. I prefer to stay ashore.

et: "The fact that we support an idea without much or any (difficult to prove a disbelief, as Agagooga said) logical evidence means that it is only held together by faith."

Say what!? I conduct my life under the assumption that there are no gods, because I have yet to see a scrap of credible evidence that there are any gods. Is that "faith"? No, it is not. Show me some evidence, and I am prepared to change my thinking. But until then, I will make decisions based on what seems to be the most rational and parsimonious interpretation I can give to the world. If my car goes off a cliff and I find myself trapped in a car that is sinking in water, I will very likely spend my time trying to extricate myself, and not praying to a god who I have no reason to believe exists. Is that faith? No, it's pragmatism. It's giving the most plausible interpretation to the world that one can produce, based on the evidence currently available. (I'm curious to see what violence you can do to the word "faith" so that you can pin it on me.)

et: "Yet this faith is rubbished! If, as I have said earlier, his atheism is held together by faith, I will have nothing more to say on the matter."

Funny... The word rubbish came to my mind as well, but not with regard to Agagooga...

et: "I find that this religion riddle is the most difficult question in the world to answer. In other issues, we know where to start, how to approach, and even what to normally expect. Not religion. Maybe some will hastily answer that God question, but if you do not know the answer, why should you rush into one? Why effectively lie to yourself?"

Welcome back to the land of the rational. I can't complain about anything in that last paragraph.

et "...as far as religion goes, I want to be as consistent to those basic agnostic principles of flexibility so that, should I ever get to know the truth, I will recognise, respect and embrace it, no matter how much it contradicts what I consider true, no matter how much it contradicts my beliefs."

Aside from some little quibbles about the meaning of the word "agnostic", I'm prepared to give you a round of applause for that one. What you appear to be advocating is pure and simple open-mindedness. Amen (so to peak). When Huxley originally coined the term "agnostic", his motivation was to give a label to the practice of confining one's statements to the realm of what is (in principle) knowable. In his view (and mine) there is little value in rattling on and on about things you know nothing about, nor have any hope of ever knowing about. (His actual definitions got a bit confused, but that's another story.) I think you are using the word in a spirit close to what Huxley was originally thinking. So, again, I have no quarrel with that.

I'll close with a few simple questions to you, et: What is the status of Zeus in you mind? Is he a real god? An imaginary god? Is your opinion based on faith?

ficino: Dear et, I haven't worked out all the questions about what an atheist commits him/herself to, as opposed to what an agnostic commits self to, and I'm not sure I'm up to giving that task my full-blown effort, at least, right now. Questions about fine points of epistemic certainty make my head swim pretty easily. But I'm up for trying a little harder.

Either I misspoke in my last two postings or you mistook my meaning. I did not claim, as you suggest in your summary ("the beef of what you said"), that "we need to have faith to be either atheists or theists." If what I said entails that claim as a consequence, I'd profit from being shown that it does. I was trying to endorse a distinction between "belief" and "faith." You yourself used the verb "believe" but don't claim "faith," right?

You also haven't answered my question about how you go about concluding that some class of entity doesn't exist. Jim Arvo rephrased this same question.

An agnostic says something like this, right?: I believe that in principle, a human being cannot know whether an entity exists that has the properties ascribed to "god". The agnostic's state of belief is not an act of will, not the virtue "faith" spoken of by St. Paul. It's intellectual assent to a proposition; a judgment, if you will. This assent comes after reflection on and weighing of evidence taken from many quarters.

An atheist says: I don't believe the entity exists that has the properties ascribed to "god". This can be rewritten, I believe the entity etc. does not exist; because if "I don't believe" just means "I suspend judgment," then the atheist has collapsed into the agnostic.

So, does the atheist have grounds for his/her judgment? We've already talked about the degree of epistemic certainty involved in making a judgment "that not P" based on lack of supporting evidence for P. You haven't replied to my questions about hippogriffs and the King of France, though. Do we have grounds for making the judgments that those entities don't exist? I'd say, for starters, that if the entity's definition entails contradiction/s, we can get serious about cutting it out. Can we agree that square triangles don't exist, or that maybe mammals with no hearts nor lungs don't exist? What about God, then? Many mutually contradictory things are said of the God of the Bible. Maybe we can have more confidence about atheism toward that god than we can about atheism toward some supreme creative force out there somewhere, of which very few specific properties are predicated.

In the end I also feel dishonest saying I'm an agnostic when I live as though there is no god. I can't see the point of saying I'm agnostic, somehow.

Me: et: Following your position would lead us into epistemological and philosophical nihilism. Can we know anything? If not, should we even be having debates on anything?

"A disbelief is also a belief" - What about a lack of belief? Anyhow, I think we have adequately punctured all evidence for the existence of gods, so we are right to say that we believe gods don't exist. Unless the gods in question were apathetic and undetectable. In which case I could say you could not prove that you were not living in the Matrix, therefore we should give up all hope for rational discussion and lapse into despondency and despair. Or, if you prefer, I would not be able to prove that the world would not spontaneously vanish in the next second. For all intents and purposes, a positive assertion about existence needs to be proven, while a negative assertion does not, since non-existence is the status quo.

You say we need to continuously challenge our current beliefs. I agree, but not necessarily to the point of reading "every single challenge to that belief" and debunking "all of them". Take religion, for example. Since there are tens of thousands of religions (at least) in existence, or that have ever existed, should we take the time to debunk them all? Surely not, for that would take at least a dozen lifetimes, what with the voluminous amount of disingenuous apologist arguments formulated over the centuries.

Remaining open-minded is not the same as being non-commital - if one applies your logic, one must be agnostic about EVERYTHING, since at any point new information might come up to debunk your previously held beliefs. One would not be able to say that, say, Lee Kuan Yew is 80 years old, for at any point evidence of a wrongly entered date of birth might arise. Can we then assert even such a seemingly obvious fact safely? Should we live in a world of grave uncertainty and epistemological nihilism? I think not.

et: if nothing can be known for certain, how do *you* know that there's "one, all-encompassing truth"? And how do you know "we have not found the truth (underlying all of quantum physics, if not all of religion) today"?

We will never have total certainty about anything, for even the laws of logic might one day we warped and 1 + 1 = 3. Does that mean we should be agnostic about everything? Perhaps we should be agnostic

You tease a valid point about uncertainty so far that it becomes facetious. Following your logic to its ultimate conclusion, nought is left but chaos and uncertainty. Reductio ad absurdum.

***

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

--- Henry Louis Mencken

***

Of all the Livejournal memes/chains that I've seen, this is the most retarded, yet hilarious:


If there is someone on your friends list you would like to take, strip naked, tie them to a bed post, eat them until they scream, then fuck them until both of you are sensless and unable to fuck anymore, then wait about 5 minutes, and do it all over again, then post this exact sentence in YOUR journal.

>_>

<_<