Atheist v. Agnostic: Friend or Foe? [Archive]

Kthulhut Fhtagn

16th December 2008, 03:57 PM

I consider agnosticism to be an epistemology rather than a via media between theism and atheism or subset of atheism. Particularly in the latter case, concerning agnosticism as a subset of atheism, I would argue that the existence of agnostic theists refutes that notion as it possible to assert that the existence of metaphysical deities is unknowable (in terms of certainty) yet continue genuinely believing in one or more for any number of reasons. The same with atheism; it is possible to assert that the existence of metaphysical entities is unknowable yet do not believe in them for any number of reasons. By referring to agnosticism as a via media I believe we cause unwarranted confusion. I also believe it's important to differentiate between atheists and apatheists, or individuals who simply don't care about the problems of whether or not there is a god.

I recently read Vox Day's book The Irrational Atheist; in it he claims that atheists are four times more likely to commit a crime than theists. Now he does this by grouping every inmate who checks "no religion" when asked and inflating their population to match that of the normal population; he also groups atheists as high church and low church atheists; high church being the intellectual elite and low church being the scum. I believe he's confusing high church with atheists in general and low church with apatheists who aren't atheists nor theists.

The point of this rant was to bring my opinion that clearly defining these terms is important; and I'll stop myself here before I end up writing a dissertation on the issue.

thesyntaxera

16th December 2008, 04:03 PM

Agnostic/gnostic and atheist/theist answer two different questions. Atheist/theist answers "What do you believe?" Agnostic/gnostic answers "What do you know?"

I am an atheist and an agnostic.

Or rather: "Do you have belief or not" and "Can you know of the existence of a diety or not"

In these discussions I always enjoy when someone brings up that other word...ignostic. We really don't have the means to frame a serious question about whether or not there is a deity that can or cannot be known...even ruling out the usual suspects still leaves many unforeseen potentials.

Science may(emphasize may) reveal the large scale structure of the universe to be some kind of "God" beyond our complete grasp. Some would argue that this type of god is meaningless and trivial because it isn't "supernatural", or that it is just simply powerless and thus irrelevant. I might disagree however. Denoting meaning is what is irrelevant as far as I can tell.

In reference to the OP, I have to agree. When in the company of preachy religious types I tend to take the path of least resistance and go with a simplified version of "agnostic".

zaphod2016

16th December 2008, 04:07 PM

He's right it is.
Agnostics [are] a subset of atheism anyway.

Disagree. As Kthulhut Fhtagn said:

I would argue that the existence of agnostic theists refutes that notion as it possible to assert that the existence of metaphysical deities is unknowable (in terms of certainty) yet continue genuinely believing in one or more for any number of reasons

I think the best definition I have seen so far was Ratiocination's:

Agnostic/gnostic and atheist/theist answer two different questions. Atheist/theist answers "What do you believe?" Agnostic/gnostic answers "What do you know?"

Kthulhut Fhtagn

16th December 2008, 04:16 PM

Exactly Zaphod; it isn't irrational to assert that an individual can be an agnostic theist the statement made essentially boils down to "I'm certain the existance or nonexistance of metaphysical entities cannot be proven true or false but I believe metaphysical entities do exist" the same as a gnostic atheist can state "I'm certain that the existance or nonexistance of metaphysical entities can be proven to be true or false and I believe metaphysical entities do not exist".

Steelmage

16th December 2008, 04:32 PM

If people are really curious about my level of certainty in that non-belief, or toss the usual "but you can't know that with absolute certainty" comes my way, I'll explain that I don't know anything with absolute certainty, but I don't see why only the word "atheist" should imply absolute 100% certainty.

But isn't agnostic a form of Pascal's Wager, you do not know 100% certainty so it is better to believe there is something there then not?

Kthulhut Fhtagn

16th December 2008, 04:37 PM

But isn't agnostic a form of Pascal's Wager, you do not know 100% certainty so it is better to believe there is something there then not?

Uncertainty on the existance of gods is a poor reason for acting contrary to atheism and assuming that gods do exist.

Roadtoad

16th December 2008, 04:38 PM

The fallacy is that 100% certainty is even possible. The only thing which we can be 100% certain of is that at some point, we'll be dead.

Tricky

16th December 2008, 05:06 PM

The fallacy is that 100% certainty is even possible. The only thing which we can be 100% certain of is that at some point, we'll be dead.
I would even mark that as only approaching 100%. The only thing we know for sure is that we don't know anything for sure.

As for the question, none of the poll answers fit. I am technically an agnostic atheist. I don't know with 100% certainty whether or not there is a god, and I also lack belief in a god.

KingMerv00

16th December 2008, 05:12 PM

"Agnostic" and "atheist" both carry unwanted baggage for me. I just say I'm an agnostic atheist and explain if needed.

Roadtoad

16th December 2008, 05:17 PM

"Agnostic" and "atheist" both carry unwanted baggage for me. I just say I'm an agnostic atheist and explain if needed.

I think it's damned arrogant for anyone to demand an explanation from you in the first place. You don't believe? Probably there's a reason for it, Merv. Before anyone demands you explain yourself, it would seem to me that your interrogator show they have any right to ask.

bobcarp

16th December 2008, 06:01 PM

KingMerv00

16th December 2008, 06:49 PM

I think it's damned arrogant for anyone to demand an explanation from you in the first place. You don't believe? Probably there's a reason for it, Merv. Before anyone demands you explain yourself, it would seem to me that your interrogator show they have any right to ask.

Wow, intense response. You must have a lot of angry conversations involving religion.

I tell others I am "agnostic atheist" because it is true AND because it is a good opportunity to educate the ignorant. The vast majority of people I talk to seem to have no idea such a philosophical stance exists and get a :boggled: look on their faces. I'm more than happy to spend 60 seconds explaining. If it takes longer, that's fine too.

EeneyMinnieMoe

16th December 2008, 06:51 PM

I'm an agnostic. I know that "atheist" does not describe me and my system of belief. Or rather, does not describe my particular lack of a system of belief. :D

It's a philosophical difference but a not too important one.

As it happens, I would say I'm agnostic on astrology, psychic powers, etc. That's what being a skeptic is all about.

Carl Sagan had a very nice quote about how skepticism always involves keeping an open mind and never saying "this does not exist" and rather always holding open the possibility of it.

Sadly, I can't find it now. :(

The Atheist

16th December 2008, 07:33 PM

arthwollipot

16th December 2008, 07:45 PM

Agnostics are the "Luke-Warm Christians" of the Atheist community.This is the commonly-accepted definition, so I'm not going to say that it's wrong. But if we consider the technical definition of the word "agnostic" it will be clear that it's hardly weak, wishy-washy, or fence-sitting.

Agnostic is the opposite of gnostic, just like atheist is the opposite of theist. Gnosticism is the belief that the deity can be directly experienced. Agnosticism is the belief that it cannot.

This means that according to agnosticism, the existence of God can never be demonstrated. It is, in a way, the strongest possible expression of non-theism.

This is certainly not a commonly-understood position though, and I wouldn't base an argument on it without first carefully defining the terms.

The Atheist

16th December 2008, 09:20 PM

... and I wouldn't base an argument on it without first carefully defining the terms.

Lucky I'm in the thread then.

arthwollipot

16th December 2008, 10:29 PM

Dave Rogers

17th December 2008, 03:15 AM

I voted that the difference between "atheist" and "agnostic" is a very big deal. However, that merely reflects the fact that I'm a pedant, so the difference between anything and anything else is always a very big deal.

Dave

The Atheist

17th December 2008, 04:01 AM

linusrichard

17th December 2008, 04:21 AM

Agnostic/gnostic and atheist/theist answer two different questions. Atheist/theist answers "What do you believe?" Agnostic/gnostic answers "What do you know?"

I am an atheist and an agnostic.

Yes, this.

Agnostics are the "Luke-Warm Christians" of the Atheist community.

Except for the non-atheist agnostics.

If "Agnosticism" is the only rational position in terms of super-natural belief, then should I be "Agnostic" in terms of astrology or mediums or psychics or good luck charms, etc?
I wouldn't normally presume to say "should," but since you ask, yes.
Should the rational position of anything that can't be proved or disproved be "agnostic"?
Yes.
If that's the case it is not rational to believe that anything is untrue.
Not correct. I've bolded the problem. You've moved from discussing a claim about knowledge to discussing belief. I am an atheist because I believe that God doesn't exist, which I think is pretty rational. I am an agnostic because I don't pretend to know that God doesn't exist, which I think is also pretty rational.

phantomb

17th December 2008, 06:11 AM

If the goal is to increase our "market share", I think "agnostic" is the better term. Clearly, I am in the minority. Just curious to know why that is, or if there is a reason at all.

My goal is not to increase the "market share", but to remain intellectually honest. If I was to call myself an agnostic atheist (anyone who does not believe in a god is an atheist, sorry), then I would also have to call myself an agnostic with respect to belief in everything else. The claim that "no one knows for sure, it is a matter of faith" can be applied to absolutely everything from the existence of goblins to the existence of the things that you perceive to exist in the world (there is no way to prove that any observation is objectively true). So no, in the complete lack of positive evidence for the celestial teapot, and in light of plenty of evidence for their not being one, I disbelieve in the celestial teapot, just like in the complete lack of positive evidence for the existence of any god, and in light of plenty of evidence for their not being a god, I disbelieve in all gods.

I don't just not believe in gods, I believe there are no gods.

Saying that since "no one knows for sure, it is a matter of faith" the only logical position for everyone to take is agnostic just doesn't make sense pragmatically. We are emotional, irrational creatures. Nobody actually holds no belief as to the existence of something they know about, everyone has a belief one way or the other, whether they can justify that belief or not. And since, as I have pointed out, it is impossible to prove the existence of anything (again, it is impossible to prove that your experiences are not all an illusion, a simulation you are plugged into, etc.), this whole position becomes extreme to the point of being nonsensical. If I asked you what your job is should you respond that "many people believe that I work in an office building, but that's impossible to prove, so I am an agnostic with respect to what job I have"?

zaphod2016

17th December 2008, 12:01 PM

I don't just not believe in gods, I believe there are no gods.

That's a very interesting thing to me- that you "believe there are no gods". That position seems to give credence to those who argue atheism is a belief.

Based on the definitions provided in this thread, I am an agnostic atheist.

I can't prove or disprove a super natural God, but I don't really believe in God (as defined by Christianity) either.

However, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I'm not really sure what I believe. For example, Kurt Vonnegut, who described himself as a "humanist" once wrote about the "Church of God the Utterly Indifferent", and this always struck me as true. I sometimes describe the universe itself as "God", in the sense that we were all created, and I am pretty sure this creator was some sort of natural process.

And, in case the word "creator" causes you to cringe (i.e. creationist), I am using a Jeffersonian definition, i.e. the Declaration of Independence:

...endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

I have always interpreted this to mean that my liberty is a birthright, bestowed to me based on the simple fact I exist- not granted by the whim of any government. An important distinction, IMO.

But, alas, I am a "fence sitter" on the issue of God. For example, I do not believe God exists, nor do I believe God does not exist. I believe that God is unknowable. But is that really a belief?

And for that matter, is it fair to call me an atheist? I do not believe God exists. However, to assume I believe the opposite is a false dichotomy. As a skeptic, I am more interested in verifiable truth than belief. Whatever beliefs I do have tend to be replaced with cold hard fact as I learn more about them.

Lanzy

17th December 2008, 12:56 PM

I'm agnostic but refer to myself as atheist when asked because it takes much less explaining. People are then free to run and flee with no further discussion.

JoeTheJuggler

17th December 2008, 01:12 PM

Agnostic/gnostic and atheist/theist answer two different questions. Atheist/theist answers "What do you believe?" Agnostic/gnostic answers "What do you know?"

I am an atheist and an agnostic.

That's the way I look at it too. I don't know there is no god, but I believe there is no god.

However, I also don't know whether Russell's teapot exists. Since there is no evidence of its existence whatsoever, I don't go around calling myself an agnostic with regard to the teapot. Similarly, I don't identify myself as an agnostic with regard to a god or gods.

Steelmage

17th December 2008, 03:29 PM

Uncertainty on the existance of gods is a poor reason for acting contrary to atheism and assuming that gods do exist.

So it is like Pascal's wager, if I am uncertain about it believe it anyways. It may be a poor reason for you to be atheist, but why believe in something that may be wrong in the first place and has no evidence of existing.

Third Eye Open

17th December 2008, 03:30 PM

I don't like the word agnostic because it implies that I'm not sure. I call myself an atheist because I don't believe in gods. I am pretty sure that is what that word means.

Agnostic? Who knows. Some people say it means you're 50/50 on the matter, some say all it takes to be agnostic is to have a shred of doubt.

But everyone has a shred of doubt about everything. So I don't see how anyone can really use that definition of agnostic.

If we look at this from another angle, and someone is asking you "do you believe in god" instead of 'are you atheist or agnostic' it would go like this.

Q. Do you believe in god?
A. No.

There, your an atheist, is that so hard?

Q. Do you believe in god?
A. [anything other than no or yes]

Now your agnostic!

Even if (as of course all of us are) you are not 100% sure of your answer, you look at the evidence and decide one way or another. I am never 100% sure that my chair will support me, but I look at the evidence and decide to sit on it.

Look at the evidence and decide if you think there is a god or not, if you decide no, your atheist. Yes, theist. Other, agnostic!

Where is the confusion?

phantomb

17th December 2008, 05:42 PM

I don't just not believe in gods, I believe there are no gods.
That's a very interesting thing to me- that you "believe there are no gods". That position seems to give credence to those who argue atheism is a belief.

I would disagree. Anyone who does not believe in a god is an atheist, and they need not actively believe there are no gods like I do. All babies are atheists because they cannot actively believe in gods, as is anyone who has never heard of gods because it is impossible to believe or disbelieve in the existence of something you have never heard of. If you accept these definitions, then it follows that it takes absolutely no faith to be an atheist, and atheism is obviously not a belief system.

This deals with agnostic atheists, but I believe our disagreement centers more around the beliefs of gnostic or strong atheists who make the statement that gods do not exist.

To sum up my position, which I got into in my last post, I admit that I cannot and do not know that gods do not exist (I can't prove that god isn't hiding behind some star where nobody has ever looked), but I believe that gods do not exist because of the mountain of evidence that there are no gods. If you want to say that because god may be hiding someplace, it is illogical to take the gnostic position with respect to belief in god then I will respond with the equally ridiculous claim that because your mind may actually be plugged into some kind of simulation (resulting in experiences that are not objectively true), it is illogical to take the gnostic position with respect to belief in absolutely everything else.

But nobody actually acts like that in the real world (as opposed to the realm of meaningless philosophical discussion). No agnostic atheist when asked what their job is will respond that because it is impossible to prove objectively what their job is, they are an agnostic with respect to belief in their job. The same can be said of the theists who are usually (always?) the ones who bring up this nonsense. Sure it might seem to make some kind of sense to accuse atheists of having faith that gods do not exist just as they have faith that they do, but the theist always forgets that he himself has the strong belief that all gods other than his own do not exist. Where are all the agnostic theists?

So there's no confusion, here are the definitions I am using:

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:

1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.

For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).

For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).

From this we get:

1. Agnostic atheist
Does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists.

2. Gnostic atheist
Believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true.
(note that this example statement is actually stronger than the standard strong atheist position because the claimant claims knowledge of the truthfulness of his beliefs)

3. Agnostic theist
Believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true.

4. Gnostic theist
Believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true.

CWL

17th December 2008, 05:55 PM

The question is not whether you define yourself as an "atheist" or "agnostic". The question is whether or not you are prepared to believe in things that are unproven or not. Personally I'm ok with labelling myself an "atheist", in the sense that on the matter of the existence of god(s) I'm an unbeliever in the sense that I see no evidence for the existence god(s). Labelling onself as an "agnostic" might imply a hope that some form of deity exists... and I don't subscribe to or feel the need for such a hope. Of course I don't deny the possibility of a deity... but then again I don't deny the possibility of - here we go again it would seem - an Invisible Pink Unicorn. I reserve the rather reasonable right to only believe in things that can be proven - within the reasonable realm of science.

... isn't this a dead horse we are flogging by the way?

The Atheist

17th December 2008, 06:32 PM

... isn't this a dead horse we are flogging by the way?

Not so much flogging as giving it a gentle nudge in the ribs to make sure it's really dead and not just so exhausted it can't breathe.

This is flogging a dead horse:

I would disagree. Anyone who does not believe in a god is an atheist, and they need not actively believe there are no gods like I do. All babies are atheists because they cannot actively believe in gods, as is anyone who has never heard of gods because it is impossible to believe or disbelieve in the existence of something you have never heard of. If you accept these definitions, then it follows that it takes absolutely no faith to be an atheist, and atheism is obviously not a belief system.

This deals with agnostic atheists, but I believe our disagreement centers more around the beliefs of gnostic or strong atheists who make the statement that gods do not exist.

To sum up my position, which I got into in my last post, I admit that I cannot and do not know that gods do not exist (I can't prove that god isn't hiding behind some star where nobody has ever looked), but I believe that gods do not exist because of the mountain of evidence that there are no gods. If you want to say that because god may be hiding someplace, it is illogical to take the gnostic position with respect to belief in god then I will respond with the equally ridiculous claim that because your mind may actually be plugged into some kind of simulation (resulting in experiences that are not objectively true), it is illogical to take the gnostic position with respect to belief in absolutely everything else.

But nobody actually acts like that in the real world (as opposed to the realm of meaningless philosophical discussion). No agnostic atheist when asked what their job is will respond that because it is impossible to prove objectively what their job is, they are an agnostic with respect to belief in their job. The same can be said of the theists who are usually (always?) the ones who bring up this nonsense. Sure it might seem to make some kind of sense to accuse atheists of having faith that gods do not exist just as they have faith that they do, but the theist always forgets that he himself has the strong belief that all gods other than his own do not exist. Where are all the agnostic theists?

So there's no confusion, here are the definitions I am using:

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There are two positions one can take with respect to either claim:

1. Belief or acceptance of the claim.
2. Disbelief or rejection of the claim.

For claim number 1 (the god exists), the theist takes the first position (belief), while the atheist takes the second (disbelief).

For claim number 2 (the god does not exist), the theist takes the second position (disbelief), while the atheist can hold either position (belief or disbelief).

From this we get:

1. Agnostic atheist
Does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists.

2. Gnostic atheist
Believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true.
(note that this example statement is actually stronger than the standard strong atheist position because the claimant claims knowledge of the truthfulness of his beliefs)

3. Agnostic theist
Believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true.

4. Gnostic theist
Believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true.

God, I hope nobody read all that. As bad as any christian wall of text.

phantomb

17th December 2008, 07:17 PM

This is flogging a dead horse:

Well, when every few months the "dead" horse gets back up on its feet and starts moving around . . .

But yes, sorry for employing the Wall-of-Text 9000

The Atheist

17th December 2008, 07:31 PM

Well, when every few months the "dead" horse gets back up on its feet and starts moving around . . .

Yeah, I'm going to test a new pole-axe next year - see if we can kill the bastard once and for all.

Roadtoad

17th December 2008, 08:19 PM

Poleaxe, hell. May I suggest a 12 gauge. Loaded with double ought buck.

soylent

17th December 2008, 09:00 PM

Theism/atheism is completely orthogonal to gnosticism/agnosticism.

It's a simple binary choice with no middle ground(save for people with multiple personality disorder, at any particular point in time you either belive in god(s) or you don't). Using agnostic as shorthand for refusing to answer the question of whether you believe in god is absurd; it's like using the number pi as shorthand for politely refusing to say what your favorite colour is.

This is a consequence of trying to load atheism with a lot of emotional baggage that doesn't belong there. Atheism is perfectly compatible with several religions(e.g. buddhism) and all sorts of crazy nonsense like astrology and homeopathy; all it really means is that you don't belive in god(s), nothing more, nothing less. There is no catch-all word for irreligious, agnostic atheists without belief in the super natural or in superstition; if you want to accurately describe your position, go down the list and tick off the boxes one by one.

The Atheist

17th December 2008, 10:37 PM

Atheism is perfectly compatible with several religions(e.g. buddhism) and all sorts of crazy nonsense like astrology and homeopathy; all it really means is that you don't belive in god(s), nothing more, nothing less.

Yep. Bang on.

There is no catch-all word for irreligious, agnostic atheists without belief in the super natural or in superstition; if you want to accurately describe your position, go down the list and tick off the boxes one by one.

Rationalist/materialist works fine.

arthwollipot

18th December 2008, 12:01 AM

I don't know whether this belongs here or in the "misconceptions" thread, but it really annoys me when people assume that just because I am an atheist, I am also a secular humanist.

The Atheist

18th December 2008, 12:39 AM

I don't know whether this belongs here or in the "misconceptions" thread, but it really annoys me when people assume that just because I am an atheist, I am also a secular humanist.

Dunno about that one - I think it's a reasonable assumption. Not to mention fairly mild, it's a bit like being accused of being good looking or intelligent.

I don't mind being mistaken for a secular humanist. The illusion never lasts long anyway.

:bgrin:

arthwollipot

18th December 2008, 12:43 AM

Dunno about that one - I think it's a reasonable assumption. Not to mention fairly mild, it's a bit like being accused of being good looking or intelligent.

I don't mind being mistaken for a secular humanist. The illusion never lasts long anyway.

:bgrin:Yeah - I've never self-identified as a secular humanist, because I've never really gone looking to find out what one is. I suspect that I probably would be one, if I ever bothered to work out what it means, but I haven't.

Tsukasa Buddha

18th December 2008, 12:44 AM

I'm a pantheist; which, according to Dawkins, makes me a sexy atheist ;) .

tanstaafl28

18th December 2008, 04:16 AM

Dunstan

18th December 2008, 09:33 AM

I'd like to throw my two cents in, if I may.

For those who many not be aware, the use of the term "agnostic" as someone who views both the position of the theist, and the atheist, as equally indefensible, was coined in the Mid-to-late-19th Century. The person attributed with coining the term was Thomas Henry Huxley.

None of which definitively answers what those terms mean today. Language changes.

The idea that some atheists would be highly critical of agnostics for choosing a neutral position smacks of the kind of "absolutism" that is more often associated with theism. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the agnostic's position, they can be considered fellow freethinkers, can they not?

There are basically two reasons I can see why self-described "atheists" criticize self-described "agnostics" (I'm dispensing with the scare quotes from now on, but bear in mind that both those terms are subject to differing interpretations):

1. Because it appears to the atheist that the agnostic actually has the same beliefs as an atheist, but chooses to use the term "agnostic" because it is more socially acceptable, less controversial, etc.

2. Because it appears to the atheist that the agnostic really does adopt a different position from the atheist, and the atheist doesn't see why non-religious "wrong" positions should be immune from argument. If telling someone that you think they're wrong is "absolutism," then we're all absolutists. There's nothing privileged about a "middle" position: the person who thinks that 2+2=3 isn't taking a "moderate" position between the person who thinks the answer is 2 and the one who thinks the answer is 4.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

18th December 2008, 05:38 PM

You know, we're assuming an etymology of agnostic that might not be right. The Gnostics were a were a bunch of Greeks that believed certain things about a divine being and the ability to obtain knowledge about it. The a-Gnostics were simply people who didn't believe those particular things.

This is not to be confused with the ana-Gnostics.

~~ Paul

arthwollipot

18th December 2008, 07:52 PM

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2008, 11:44 PM

Agnostic/gnostic and atheist/theist answer two different questions. Atheist/theist answers "What do you believe?" Agnostic/gnostic answers "What do you know?"

I am an atheist and an agnostic.I think I know what you were trying to get at, but you can interpret "believe" and "know" in so many ways, that answer isn't sufficient.

I "believe" what I have currently concluded from the evidence. That doesn't mean I can't change that belief should new evidence emerge.

By the same token, I "believe" in the scientific principle that one cannot "prove" the negative. However, unlike agnostics, I don't apply that principle to god beliefs because I "believe" there is sufficient evidence to conclude all god beliefs are inventions of human imagination. It's really no different than people having concluded there is sufficient evidence to "believe" evolution theory is correct yet we haven't looked at every single genome, thus we cannot "prove" the negative that some organism exists that didn't evolve.

Obviously one needs to draw some conclusions (aka believe) in order to function. I understand the agnostic position which says, "no conclusion can be drawn because one cannot "prove the negative", and there is no current evidence of any real gods existing in the Universe, thus no reason to believe gods exist." Yet you don't hear people using some term suggesting agnosticism regarding evolution theory. Why is that?

It's a type of glass half full/ glass half empty way of looking at the god question. I think the best approach is to follow the overwhelming evidence that supports the conclusion god beliefs are fabrications rather than to take what I view as the 'ignore the evidence and the obvious' position by claiming one cannot prove there are no gods because one cannot test that claim.

There are times when it is appropriate to take the agnostic position in a scientific question. When we had a narrower view of the parameters with which life could exist many scientists would say we still couldn't rule out that life exists somewhere besides on Earth because we would never be able to test every location in the Universe. But now that we have evidence the range of environments which life can survive in is much wider. So that agnosticism is giving way to a view that, given the extent of habitable zones on Earth and the number of planets in the Universe, ET life most probably exists.

My complaint about using the agnostic approach to god beliefs is that it creates a special category or double standard so to speak for god beliefs. The same is true when skeptics apply a double standard to non-evidence based beliefs claiming "faith based beliefs" are somehow excused from the application of any evidence standards. It is claimed by some that religion and science are separate, yadda yadda, I think you all know the drill there. I see no reason to apply such a double standard.

There is evidence that god beliefs are myths. Why do we then allow this special category for some potential gods to exist when we don't think consciously of any equivalent when considering there might be some animal yet discovered that didn't evolve? The latter question never arises while the agnostic/atheist question fills pages on the forum.

I ask again, why the difference? Is it just that people don't consider following the evidence for 'god beliefs' and think they must actually look for evidence of gods? Another special category, I say. Little time is spent considering the possibility of invisible pink unicorns or fairies and leprechauns.

Time for agnostics to consider a paradigm shift, I say. Look at the evidence for god beliefs. There's plenty there to draw a conclusion about the origin of all god beliefs just as one can draw a conclusion evolution theory applies to all life. If you recognize the double standard being applied to the possibility gods might exist vs the possibility some life might exist that didn't evolve, you may recognize one can still manage the scientific principle, there is always room for new evidence to be considered, without making a special case for the possibility of gods existing. All god beliefs are fabrications. There is evidence to that effect. No need to spend more time on some special agnostic category.

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2008, 11:48 PM

The fallacy is that 100% certainty is even possible. The only thing which we can be 100% certain of is that at some point, we'll be dead.Ahha, another double standard. Science may very well discover ways to extend life indefinitely. You cannot test the future, so you cannot be 100% certain. If we must be agnostic about gods, shouldn't we all be agnostic about death and taxes?

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2008, 11:50 PM

...

If "Agnosticism" is the only rational position in terms of super-natural belief, then should I be "Agnostic" in terms of astrology or mediums or psychics or good luck charms, etc? Should the rational position of anything that can't be proved or disproved be "agnostic"? If that's the case it is not rational to believe that anything is untrue.Hear hear!

Skeptic Ginger

18th December 2008, 11:51 PM

Yeah! Stamp out the fence-sitters.I say stamp out the double standard.

Skeptic Ginger

19th December 2008, 12:01 AM

...

Not correct. I've bolded the problem. [believe] You've moved from discussing a claim about knowledge to discussing belief. I am an atheist because I believe that God doesn't exist, which I think is pretty rational. I am an agnostic because I don't pretend to know that God doesn't exist, which I think is also pretty rational.Again, it sounds meaningful at first using these terms, belief, knowledge, and so on. But on second examination it becomes clear one can interpret the words in too many ways to make this a clear idea.

Unless we all want to agree a belief is based on faith and knowledge is based on evidence, or a belief is 100% never changing, and knowledge is subject to scientific principles, then your point can easily be muddled by any reader. I find it more precise to spell out the specifics.

There is a scientific principle which says one cannot prove something does not exist if it involves being unable to test every circumstance where it could possibly exist.

There is no more reason to point that principle out regarding potential gods in the Universe than there is a reason to point out there is a possibility some life didn't evolve when you speak about a belief evolution theory is correct.

Skeptic Ginger

19th December 2008, 12:04 AM

My goal is not to increase the "market share", but to remain intellectually honest. If I was to call myself an agnostic atheist (anyone who does not believe in a god is an atheist, sorry), then I would also have to call myself an agnostic with respect to belief in everything else. The claim that "no one knows for sure, it is a matter of faith" can be applied to absolutely everything from the existence of goblins to the existence of the things that you perceive to exist in the world (there is no way to prove that any observation is objectively true). So no, in the complete lack of positive evidence for the celestial teapot, and in light of plenty of evidence for their not being one, I disbelieve in the celestial teapot, just like in the complete lack of positive evidence for the existence of any god, and in light of plenty of evidence for their not being a god, I disbelieve in all gods.

I don't just not believe in gods, I believe there are no gods.

Saying that since "no one knows for sure, it is a matter of faith" the only logical position for everyone to take is agnostic just doesn't make sense pragmatically. We are emotional, irrational creatures. Nobody actually holds no belief as to the existence of something they know about, everyone has a belief one way or the other, whether they can justify that belief or not. And since, as I have pointed out, it is impossible to prove the existence of anything (again, it is impossible to prove that your experiences are not all an illusion, a simulation you are plugged into, etc.), this whole position becomes extreme to the point of being nonsensical. If I asked you what your job is should you respond that "many people believe that I work in an office building, but that's impossible to prove, so I am an agnostic with respect to what job I have"?
Hooray, yet another rational thinker approaching the agnostic vs atheist problem! :D

arthwollipot

19th December 2008, 12:06 AM

I think this thread has been full of rational thinkers approaching the agnostic vs atheist problem.

Skeptic Ginger

19th December 2008, 12:06 AM

That's a very interesting thing to me- that you "believe there are no gods". That position seems to give credence to those who argue atheism is a belief. ....Have you considered the fact there is overwhelming evidence all god beliefs are generated from human imagination?

Skeptic Ginger

19th December 2008, 12:12 AM

I think this thread has been full of rational thinkers approaching the agnostic vs atheist problem.If you can give me a good reason for the double standard re god beliefs, then I might reconsider my position.

arthwollipot

19th December 2008, 12:16 AM

If you can give me a good reason for the double standard re god beliefs, then I might reconsider my position.I have no interest in getting you to reconsider your position. I think your position is perfectly valid. I just objected to your use of the word "rational" to mean "agrees with me".

I think this thread has been full of very rational ideas - some of which I agree with, some of which I don't. But I consider them all to be valid ideas.

Skeptic Ginger

19th December 2008, 01:00 AM

I have no interest in getting you to reconsider your position. I think your position is perfectly valid. I just objected to your use of the word "rational" to mean "agrees with me".

I think this thread has been full of very rational ideas - some of which I agree with, some of which I don't. But I consider them all to be valid ideas.You seem to have missed the point. If you think the agnostic position has been presented here as a rational point of view, then address the rationalness of using a double standard for evidence regarding gods vs evidence applied to other scientific theories, conclusions, etc., and to other woo topics.

Rational does not mean "to agree with me". There are many things which I have drawn a conclusion about that rational people might come to a different conclusion looking at the same evidence.

I find it irrational to apply a double standard to god beliefs when it comes to making such a point of adding that one cannot "know" with 100% certainty yet the same caveat is rarely if ever heard when skeptics are discussing evolution theory. And it is a double standard that cannot be justified to claim so called 'faith based beliefs' when discussing god beliefs vs evidence based beliefs for everything else.

Support the rationalness of this double standard if you can. I say it is not rational.

KingMerv00

19th December 2008, 02:09 AM

I find it irrational to apply a double standard to god beliefs when it comes to making such a point of adding that one cannot "know" with 100% certainty yet the same caveat is rarely if ever heard when skeptics are discussing evolution theory. And it is a double standard that cannot be justified to claim so called 'faith based beliefs' when discussing god beliefs vs evidence based beliefs for everything else.

All of my beliefs (evolution included) are tentative. No evidence is perfect and I hold no double standard.

You might hear me say "I am certain" every once in a while but that is only shorthand.

arthwollipot

19th December 2008, 06:59 AM

You seem to have missed the point. If you think the agnostic position has been presented here as a rational point of view, then address the rationalness of using a double standard for evidence regarding gods vs evidence applied to other scientific theories, conclusions, etc., and to other woo topics... Support the rationalness of this double standard if you can. I say it is not rational.Well, I am labouring under the conceit that my own point of view was rational, and did not involve any kind of double standard:

Agnostic is the opposite of gnostic, just like atheist is the opposite of theist. Gnosticism is the belief that the deity can be directly experienced. Agnosticism is the belief that it cannot.

This means that according to agnosticism, the existence of God can never be demonstrated. It is, in a way, the strongest possible expression of non-theism.You're welcome to point out any double standard you perceive there.

arthwollipot

19th December 2008, 07:02 AM

And just because,

What does "extremely unimportant" mean?

Skeptic Ginger

19th December 2008, 02:51 PM

All of my beliefs (evolution included) are tentative. No evidence is perfect and I hold no double standard.

You might hear me say "I am certain" every once in a while but that is only shorthand.The point is most of us know this is the correct skeptical position and have no need to point it out when we speak of all the other woo besides god beliefs and other scientific evidence besides evidence which supports the fact all god beliefs are mythical in nature.

The Atheist

19th December 2008, 02:56 PM

The point is most of us know this is the correct skeptical position ...

Quite right, and only self-labelled agnostics, theists and other stupityists feel the need to debate the point.

Skeptic Ginger

19th December 2008, 03:39 PM

"Agnostic is the opposite of gnostic, just like atheist is the opposite of theist. Gnosticism is the belief that the deity can be directly experienced. Agnosticism is the belief that it cannot.

This means that according to agnosticism, the existence of God can never be demonstrated. It is, in a way, the strongest possible expression of non-theism."

You're welcome to point out any double standard you perceive there.Well on the one hand you've made a declaration that there is only one definition of agnostic when there are several.

But, here you are simply noting the technical definition of agnostic. It is not the definition of agnostic used in the discussion, atheist vs agnostic, but that's beside the point. This is not what I applied my complaint of a double standard to. And my comment to you was about defending my assertion agnosticism as defined in the typical atheist vs agnostic debate requires a double standard.

Agnosticism defined (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnosticism)1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.Both these definitions require god beliefs be treated differently than either scientific conclusions or woo, thus a double standard.

Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/aboutus.htm) has a discussion of the agnostic atheist position. (You may have to hit "skip this ad".) The following is much chopped up. I recommend you read the actual source but I've picked out the points to highlight for those with no time and/or interest.

Agnosticism: Uncertainty about whether God exists (http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm)Agnosticism is a concept, not a full religion. It is a belief related to the existence or non-existence of God. ...

Agnosticism implies uncertainty about the existence of God. The basic problem here is that there are many answers to the question "Does God exist?" However there is only this one term available to cover all of the meanings. Some of today's possible overlapping answers to the question are:

* I don't personally know.
* I don't know but will lead my life in the assumption that no God exists.
* I don't know but will lead my life assuming that God does exist.
* I cannot give an opinion because there is no way that we can prove the existence or non-existence of God given currently available knowledge.
* I cannot give an opinion because there is no way to know, with certainty, anything about God, now and in the future.
* Yes, God exists. But we do not know anything about God at this time.
* Yes, God exists. But we have no possibility of knowing anything about God, now or in the future....

Three main meanings have been associated with "Agnostic" since Thomas H. Huxley invented the term in the mid-19th century

* Huxley defined agnosticism as follows: "... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." 11
* "... an agnostic is someone who not only is undecided concerning the existence of God, but who also thinks that the question of God’s existence is in principle unanswerable. We cannot know whether or not God exists, according to an agnostic, and should therefore neither believe nor disbelieve in him." 12
* An agnostic is undecided about whether or not God exists.

Are Agnostics also Atheists?

...Agnostics do not believe in ... Gods... However, some Agnostics consider themselves to be Atheists. That is because the term "Atheist" has two slightly different meanings:

1. A person who positively believes that no God(s) or Goddess(es) exists. ...

2. A person who has no belief in a God or Goddess. Just as a newborn has no concept of a deity, some adults also have no such belief. ....

Some Agnostics feel that their beliefs match the second definition, and thus consider themselves to be both Atheist and an Agnostic....

As currently defined, an agnostic usually holds the question of the existence of God open, pending the arrival of more evidence. They are willing to change their belief if some solid evidence or logical proof is found in the future. ...

Another category of Agnostic is "empirical Agnostics." They believe that God may exist, but that little or nothing can be known about him/her/it/them....

So again, it is not the scientific principle of always including the possibility of new evidence to which I object, but rather, I object to the double standard defining god as something unknowable because it is outside the realm of science just as 'before time' and 'outside the Universe' are considered outside the realm of science. We don't define the 'unknowable' mechanisms of acupuncture or homeopathy this way. We don't define the science of evolution as uncertain because we have yet to test every single organism.

How many investigations of god beliefs does it take to declare god beliefs are as woo as homeopathy and the origin of god beliefs is as certain to be human imagination as evolution theory is certain to apply to all life?

**On a side note, RT also points out Such confusion is common in the field of religion. We have found 17 definitions for the term "Witch," eight for "cult," and six for the "Pagan." -- all different. A lack of clear, unambiguous definitions for religious terms is responsible for a great deal of confusion and hatred. It makes dialog among Agnostics, Theists, and Atheists very difficult. In fact, when such a dialogue is attempted, it should be preceded with a long session to resolve definitions.

arthwollipot

20th December 2008, 06:41 AM

I'll have to get back to this sometime when it isn't quite so late...

Richard Masters

21st December 2008, 12:47 AM

Dunstan

21st December 2008, 01:25 AM

I use agnostic to mean, "show me some evidence".

I find that the phrase "show me some evidence" serves that function admirably, thus avoiding the need to invent a new definition for an existing word.

phantomb

21st December 2008, 04:16 AM

I disagree with all the above posts.

While I'm agnostic in regard to God and unicorns, I use agnostic to mean, "show me some evidence". Since there are no Unicornians to challenge, I don't use the word agnostic when I talk about unicorns.

I apologize in advance if my position is too logical for atheists to understand :)

I agree with your post.

I use I agree with your post to mean "What? How is it logical to take an existing word, make up a completely new definition for it, then criticize everyone else for using the word as it is actually defined and understood.". Since your post makes no sense, I use I agree with your post when talking to you.

I apologize in advance if my position is too logical for people who make up their own definitions of words to understand :)

Radrook

21st December 2008, 08:35 AM

I find the agnostic stance far more rational than the atheistic one which of necessity requires the claim of omniscience.

Uncle Otto

21st December 2008, 08:35 AM

Over the years have come to the conclusion that "agnostic" really doesn't say much of anything about a person's actual beliefs. That is, other than in a strictly social sense. Everyone in here knows better, but then a message board for skeptics doesn't represent the general population out in the real world either.

I perceive it as being used mostly as a more socially acceptable substitute for "atheist" by those who want to avoid being ostracized or worse. That is how I have mainly encountered it out in society myself. While I am aware that there is a distinct difference between the two words, I have found that using "agnostic" to describe oneself to someone not well read in the subject confuses them more than anything else, and is even more misunderstood and misused than "atheist".

I used to identify as an agnostic atheist, which from a purely semantic POV is quite correct in my case. IMO, and based on real world experience, I'd say that most people who identify as atheist are also probably agnostic. Strong atheists are a minority among our ranks it seems to me, although I've never seen any hard and fast numbers to prove it.

So in order to avoid unnecessary explanations, I simply self identify these days as an atheist. Cuts out a lot of the BS and dancing around the subject. I have also developed my own basic rule of thumb for what constitutes an atheist, regardless of any sub-categories. It is this-------

If you hold forth no positive belief in any one or more gods or deities-----you are an atheist, period. You are without theism. That I am also agnostic only helps to explain why I am an atheist.

As one or two others have pointed out, agnosticism is frequently used to try to describe someone as a "fence-sitter", when in reality there is no such thing. You either believe in something called "god" or you do not. There is no middle ground of belief.

Agnosticism deals with a lack of knowledge about something. Atheism deals with the lack of belief about something. They are two different yet frequently overlapping terms, and are in no way mutually exclusive of each other.

My 2¢ worth.

yy2bggggs

21st December 2008, 10:42 AM

I find the agnostic stance far more rational than the atheistic one which of necessity requires the claim of omniscience.
I find the atheistic stance far more rational than this stance which of necessity requires a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of and relationships between belief, certainty (including it's fundamental relevance), belief revision, and possibility.

Richard Masters

21st December 2008, 11:05 AM

I find that the phrase "show me some evidence" serves that function admirably, thus avoiding the need to invent a new definition for an existing word.

Can you think of a demonym that comes closer? I don't think I'm really redefining the term.

Richard Masters

21st December 2008, 11:07 AM

I agree with your post.

I use I agree with your post to mean "What? How is it logical to take an existing word, make up a completely new definition for it, then criticize everyone else for using the word as it is actually defined and understood.". Since your post makes no sense, I use I agree with your post when talking to you.

I apologize in advance if my position is too logical for people who make up their own definitions of words to understand :)

What a coincidence! I agree with your straw man argument :)

CORed

21st December 2008, 11:57 AM

He's right it is.

Agnostics, by their very nature, do not believe in god and are therefore a subset of atheism anyway.

Just a wimpy, cop-out, fence-sitting, kind of atheist.

:bgrin:

It seems to me that a lot of the argument here simply comes down to definition. I prefer to describe myself as an agnostic, and feel that the term "atheist" implies some degree of certainty about the non-existence of God.

Many others define atheism to include what I call agnosticism. I would agree that what I call agnosticism is the rational point of view. The existence and non-existence of God are unprovable. If people who hold this viewpoint choose to identify themselves as atheists, fine with me.

As to those who are absolutely certain that there is no God, I can only hope that their faith gives them comfort and does not lead them to do harm.

fls

21st December 2008, 12:19 PM

Dunstan

21st December 2008, 12:29 PM

I find the agnostic stance far more rational than the atheistic one which of necessity requires the claim of omniscience.

It must be funny when a doctor asks for your family medical history:

"I am not omniscient and do not claim to be, so I cannot answer your question. I can only say that the man who raised me, and who claimed to be my father, though of course I cannot say for sure whether or not he is in fact my biological father because I never saw a DNA test, and even those tests are fallible anyway, allegedly died of lung cancer. I, of course, cannot say for certain whether he did in fact die of lung cancer. Certainly he smoked three packs a day for twenty years, and he told me that his doctor had diagnosed him with lung cancer, and the medical staff at the hospital claimed that cancer was the cause of death, but no autopsy was conducted. Now, as to the woman who claimed to be my mother...."

and at this point, the doctor is calling for a psych consult. But hey, at least you've made clear that you aren't claiming omniscience!

Richard Masters

21st December 2008, 12:30 PM

The Atheist

21st December 2008, 12:32 PM

Since there are no Unicornians to challenge, I don't use the word agnostic when I talk about unicorns.

Are you sure about that? Lots of people think they used to exist.

I find that the phrase "show me some evidence" serves that function admirably, thus avoiding the need to invent a new definition for an existing word.

15 Grammar Points! (Just a guide to the points system value, 10 buys you three nights in Vegas with two hookers.)

I find the agnostic stance far more rational than the atheistic one which of necessity requires the claim of omniscience.

Damn right.

It's obvious that to be an atheist, one must know everything, just as, to be a theist, one must know nothing.

I'm The Atheist, and yes, I do know everything.

You, I take it, are a theist.

Over the years have come to the conclusion that "agnostic" really doesn't say much of anything about a person's actual beliefs.

I dunno about that.

I perceive it as being used mostly as a more socially acceptable substitute for "atheist" by those who want to avoid being ostracized or worse.

Quite right.

My 2¢ worth.

Selling yourself short - good post.

Easily worth a quarter.

As to those who are absolutely certain that there is no God, I can only hope that their faith gives them comfort and does not lead them to do harm.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Sorry, but this is bollocks. I'm so sick and tired of this tripe, the next time I see it, I'm going to arrange for a flock of ducks to fly over the house of whoever said it and crap all over anyone who comes outside!

I think a good case can be made for the certainty that there are no gods, and while I don't bother with it myself, it is as much a relation to theistic faith as a tin of biscuits is. At the very best, you are seriously misusing the "faith" argument as fervently as any slavering BAF christian.

And what's with the "lead them to harm" garbage? Are people who deny the existence of god/s susceptible to self-harm?

Maybe emos deny god?

[/shruggy emoticon goes here]

fls

21st December 2008, 12:36 PM

I've never claimed that it is not possible to know whether or not gods exist. That's not agnosticism the way I understand it.

Instead, I'm open to evidence. But none is forthcoming. Since you can't prove a negative, the atheistic position is stronger by default.

If agnostic means "show me the evidence", what does gnostic mean?

Linda

phantomb

21st December 2008, 12:50 PM

What a coincidence! I agree with your straw man argument :)

Straw man? You don't see that you've essentially redefined agnostic to mean skeptic?

I use agnostic to mean, "show me some evidence"

Here are a few definitions of agnostic for you:

agnostic |øgˈnɑstɪk| |əgˈnɑstɪk|
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

ag⋅nos⋅tic
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

Here's one that I think is particularly clear:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._Agnostic

zaphod2016

22nd December 2008, 12:21 AM

Disclaimer: I'm on a philosophy forum at 2am- I am playing "devil's advocate"; not trying to engage a flame war.

For those who many not be aware, the use of the term "agnostic" as someone who views both the position of the theist, and the atheist, as equally indefensible, was coined in the Mid-to-late-19th Century. The person attributed with coining the term was Thomas Henry Huxley.

Thank you for sharing that. I like that quite a bit: "the theist, and the atheist, [are] equally indefensible". When we are talking about using evidence and facts to prove or disprove the issue, I agree 100%.

But translated literally, as already discussed, "agnosticism" is not a statement on belief, but a statement on what is, and what can be, known.

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

3. The god used to exist, but does not exist anymore

4. The god does not exist, but will exist in the future

5. The god can somehow influence the physical world, despite the fact it doesn't exist (i.e. the "placebo" effect of prayer)

Defining God as a super-natural force is the ultimate logical defense, because any attempt to define or test that god is limited to the physical world. So long as God can bend the rules of physics, by definition, it is logically impossible to prove or disprove anything. Credit where credit is due: the catch-22 of faith is quite clever.

The idea that some atheists would be highly critical of agnostics for choosing a neutral position smacks of the kind of "absolutism" that is more often associated with theism.

It also reminds me of debating politics with a hardcore Republican or Democrat. For example: I assume most rational people understand that neither party is perfect, but a "true believer" will defend a failed policy to the death. Personally speaking, I find it makes honest discussion impossible, and I consider it a major turn-off.

Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the agnostic's position, they can be considered fellow freethinkers, can they not?

I sure hope so. And, for what its worth, I prefer the phrase "freethinker" to either agnostic or atheist. It implies that I have the right to change my mind. I quite like that. Rather than "belong to a club" or "pick a team", I am free to let my mind consider all angles.

Intellectual freedom makes me happy. Then again, you can't allow yourself to become so open-minded that your brain falls out in the process.

Damien Evans

22nd December 2008, 12:50 AM

I'm an agnostic. I know that "atheist" does not describe me and my system of belief. Or rather, does not describe my particular lack of a system of belief. :D

Atheist doesn't describe you. Ok then, which Gods do you believe in?

Kil

22nd December 2008, 01:04 AM

I was an atheist. Then I became a skeptic, which caused me to reevaluate my position and become an agnostic. Of course, as an agnostic, I am also an atheist.

Richard Masters

22nd December 2008, 01:21 AM

Are you sure about that? Lots of people think they used to exist.

But not anymore. That's why it's pointless to say I'm agnostic in relation to unicorns.

CORRECTION: I misread your post; People still think they existed?

zaphod2016

22nd December 2008, 01:31 AM

But not anymore. That's why it's pointless to say I'm agnostic in relation to unicorns.

Well, I am agnostic in relation to unicorns. And this is why. (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/06/11/unicorn-zoom.html)

As a matter of fact, I'd argue unicorns are much more probable than a super-natural god. A horn is a lot closer to my version of reality than, say, immortal omnipotence.

Richard Masters

22nd December 2008, 01:31 AM

If agnostic means "show me the evidence", what does gnostic mean?

Linda

Being a gnostic, framed this way, would mean that you claim to know or claim to have the evidence, usu. regarding divine phenomena.

I like the original definition of agnostic by Huxley.

But even better is "weak agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism)".

Richard Masters

22nd December 2008, 01:35 AM

Well, I am agnostic in relation to unicorns. And this is why. (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/06/11/unicorn-zoom.html)

As a matter of fact, I'd argue unicorns are much more probable than a super-natural god. A horn is a lot closer to my version of reality than, say, immortal omnipotence.

Like I said, whether I consider myself agnostic in terms of God or unicorns, has more to do with how useful the term is in each context, than with probability or plausibility.

Richard Masters

22nd December 2008, 01:51 AM

Straw man? You don't see that you've essentially redefined agnostic to mean skeptic?

If you look at the etymology of the word, skeptic is pretty much the same as agnostic, except for the reference to God.

a- without
-gnos knowledge
-ic adjective, demonym

Here are a few definitions of agnostic for you:

The first definition is Strong Agnosticism; the second is Weak Agnosticism.

Here's one that I think is particularly clear:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._Agnostic

That's more consistent with the actual root of the terms so I concur with the Combining Terms (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._Agnostic#Combining_ter ms) section.

phantomb

22nd December 2008, 04:30 AM

If you look at the etymology of the word, skeptic is pretty much the same as agnostic, except for the reference to God.

a- without
-gnos knowledge
-ic adjective, demonym

And yet, they are not the same word. There may exist some definition for agnostic which is the same as skeptic, but it is not widely used here. This is important because my original dispute was with your criticism of everyone in this thread for not using that definition (I originally accused you of making your definition up, but if you insist that it is a widely used definition then I apologize for that). I know that most people here would not agree with your definition because in several previous threads on this exact issue, I passed around that link and asked for feedback about whether or not that was the generally understood definition.

The first definition is Strong Agnosticism; the second is Weak Agnosticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_agnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism

So they are.

That's more consistent with the actual root of the terms so I concur with the Combining Terms (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheist_vs._Agnostic#Combining_ter ms) section.

You do? Well isn't that the strangest thing because those exact definitions were actually part of my original posts in this thread and were reproduced almost perfectly by me at the end of those posts.

I can understand why you might not have read my posts as they were long and boring, but if you didn't then you really shouldn't have opened your own post with "I disagree with all the above posts.", because it kind of makes it sound like you'd read over all the above posts and disagreed with them.

phantomb

22nd December 2008, 04:36 AM

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

3. The god used to exist, but does not exist anymore

4. The god does not exist, but will exist in the future

5. The god can somehow influence the physical world, despite the fact it doesn't exist (i.e. the "placebo" effect of prayer)

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god at the moment:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There, I think we can all agree with that. :D

fls

22nd December 2008, 04:59 AM

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god at the moment:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There, I think we can all agree with that. :D

3. God's existence is immaterial.

Linda

fls

22nd December 2008, 05:05 AM

Being a gnostic, framed this way, would mean that you claim to know or claim to have the evidence, usu. regarding divine phenomena.

Okay, then that still fits with calling myself a gnostic atheist.

I like the original definition of agnostic by Huxley.

But even better is "weak agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_agnosticism)".

Yeah, there's a million ways to define agnosticism. What's kind of fun about these threads is that we divide ourselves up into these various camps when it comes to how we want to describe our beliefs, but we all seem to have almost identical beliefs.

Linda

Radrook

22nd December 2008, 05:55 AM

It must be funny when a doctor asks for your family medical history:

"I am not omniscient and do not claim to be, so I cannot answer your question. I can only say that the man who raised me, and who claimed to be my father, though of course I cannot say for sure whether or not he is in fact my biological father because I never saw a DNA test, and even those tests are fallible anyway, allegedly died of lung cancer. I, of course, cannot say for certain whether he did in fact die of lung cancer. Certainly he smoked three packs a day for twenty years, and he told me that his doctor had diagnosed him with lung cancer, and the medical staff at the hospital claimed that cancer was the cause of death, but no autopsy was conducted. Now, as to the woman who claimed to be my mother...."

and at this point, the doctor is calling for a psych consult. But hey, at least you've made clear that you aren't claiming omniscience!

This is about the justifiability of a claim. Many Atheists claim certainty that an ID doesn't exist. Can you or anyone else here show me how to claim certainty that an ID doesn't exist without simultaneously claiming omniscience? Or better yet, how can certainty of the nonexistence of an ID be rationally claimed without omniscience? Since omniscience is required to rule out an ID, then any claim that an ID doesn't exist is irrational and unscientific. You see the claim of certainty that an ID doesn't exist fits the fallacious reasoning category of a conclusion reached based on insufficient evidence. Why? Because sufficient evidence requires that we scour all reality as evidence of certainty and being humans of infinitely limited abilities we lack that power. In fact, we don't even know yet for certainty what the nature of reality is much less what its totality consists of contains or lacks. Proof? Listen to your vaunted physicists with their uncertainties concerning the pre-Big Bang scenario and their speculations about multiple universes and type one and type two dimensions they might contain and the beings and creatures that these might in turn hold.

So when one hears scientists admitting that they don't know what reality is from one corner of their mouths and spouting certainty of the nonexistence of an ID from the other-one cannot but marvel at their inconsistency and hubris.

Richard Masters

22nd December 2008, 07:33 AM

You do? Well isn't that the strangest thing because those exact definitions were actually part of my original posts in this thread and were reproduced almost perfectly by me at the end of those posts.

I can understand why you might not have read my posts as they were long and boring, but if you didn't then you really shouldn't have opened your own post with "I disagree with all the above posts.", because it kind of makes it sound like you'd read over all the above posts and disagreed with them.

Sorry, I assumed people who weren't really disagreeing with me would notice. :o

Beth

22nd December 2008, 08:24 AM

I've recently decided that I am best described as a gnostic atheist. I don't understand claims of agnosticism (that it is not possible to know whether or not gods exist), as it seems to indicate a state of certainty about what can and cannot be known which is at odds with the evidence. So I don't happen to believe in gods, and I think that it is possible to discover whether or not there are gods. I would like to understand why agnostics exclude the possibility out-of-hand, though.

Linda

I think it depends on the definition of god. I'm a strong agnostic on certain definitions of god. Can we ever ascertain whether or note our entire universe is the deliberate creation of an intelligent being that exists in more than or outside of our familiar four dimensions? I don't think that mankind will manage such a feat in my lifetime at any rate. Please note that this definition of god does not imply anything about whether such a creator is benevolent, omniscient, or possesses the power to intervene in our universe or by bending or breaking the laws of nature as we understand them. Nor does it imply that humans are special deliberate creations of that god.

Other definitions of god are easily shown to be inconsistent and therefore, it's quite reasonable to conclude those gods don't exist.

Still other definitions are not inconsistent, but not provable either. Panthesism strikes me as that type.

If agnostic means "show me the evidence", what does gnostic mean?

Linda I've seen the evidence and made up my mind.

3. God's existence is immaterial.

Linda

Of course. Most definitions of god imply that he/she is a spiritual being, not a material one. :)

fls

22nd December 2008, 09:01 AM

I think it depends on the definition of god. I'm a strong agnostic on certain definitions of god. Can we ever ascertain whether or note our entire universe is the deliberate creation of an intelligent being that exists in more than or outside of our familiar four dimensions? I don't think that mankind will manage such a feat in my lifetime at any rate.

I'm personally disinclined (if only because we seem to be wrong every time we attempt to do so) to make statements about what humankind will accomplish - certainly not to the point of building it into a description of my state of knowledge. I like the idea of wide-open possibilities, and I may even go so far as to say that it is necessary to the advancement of knowledge to assume that there are no limits.

Still other definitions are not inconsistent, but not provable either. Panthesism strikes me as that type.

Yes, it's merely redundant.

I've seen the evidence and made up my mind.

Richard said much the same thing. And considering what you said earlier about concluding that gods don't exist, it seems to remain a useless qualifier.

Of course. Most definitions of god imply that he/she is a spiritual being, not a material one. :)

Yes, I thought I was excessively clever to make use of the double-meaning.

Linda

Beth

22nd December 2008, 09:19 AM

I'm personally disinclined (if only because we seem to be wrong every time we attempt to do so) to make statements about what humankind will accomplish - certainly not to the point of building it into a description of my state of knowledge. I like the idea of wide-open possibilities, and I may even go so far as to say that it is necessary to the advancement of knowledge to assume that there are no limits.

Whereas I am uncomfortable concluding that no gods exist when some definitions are clearly not determinable at this point and it seems a very reasonable conclusion to me that such knowledge will not be forthcoming in my lifetime. To each their own. :)

Yes, it's merely redundant. I don't find pantheism a redundant description because most definitions of 'universe' do not include 'consciousness' as an assumed charactoristic. But perhaps you were thinking of a different word it was redundant with.

Richard said much the same thing. And considering what you said earlier about concluding that gods don't exist, it seems to remain a useless qualifier. Sorry, I don't follow this. What word/phrase do you think is a useless qualifier and what term is it qualifying.

Yes, I thought I was excessively clever to make use of the double-meaning.

Linda :) So did I.

Dunstan

22nd December 2008, 09:28 AM

This is about the justifiability of a claim.

Actually, it's not. This thread is about terminology, specifically what claims are communicated by the terms "atheist" and "agnostic."

Many Atheists claim certainty that an ID doesn't exist.

Very very few claim certainty, in my experience, assuming you mean absolute certainty without possibility of error. And I am not one of them, so I'm snipping most of your "god of the gaps" crap as irrelevant.

Listen to your vaunted physicists with their uncertainties concerning the pre-Big Bang scenario and their speculations about multiple universes and type one and type two dimensions they might contain and the beings and creatures that these might in turn hold.

I prefer my physicists unvaunted.

So when one hears scientists admitting that they don't know what reality is from one corner of their mouths and spouting certainty of the nonexistence of an ID from the other-one cannot but marvel at their inconsistency and hubris.

Sort of like how one cannot but marvel at the inconsistency and hubris of those who claim not only to know that there is a creator of the universe, but to know what he wants?

fls

22nd December 2008, 09:38 AM

Whereas I am uncomfortable concluding that no gods exist when some definitions are clearly not determinable at this point and it seems a very reasonable conclusion to me that such knowledge will not be forthcoming in my lifetime. To each their own. :)

Exactly. You seem comfortable concluding that determinable gods don't exist (in reference to your statement that "[o]ther definitions of god are easily shown to be inconsistent and therefore, it's quite reasonable to conclude those gods don't exist"), and it seems reasonable to guess that you would continue to have confidence in whatever process allowed you to make that call in regards to those gods when it comes to future determinable gods, yet you say that you do not.

I don't find pantheism a redundant description because most definitions of 'universe' do not include 'consciousness' as an assumed charactoristic. But perhaps you were thinking of a different word it was redundant with.

Redundant in the sense of "superfluous, exceeding what is necessary."

Sorry, I don't follow this. What word/phrase do you think is a useless qualifier and what term is it qualifying.

Gnostic/agnostic and atheist.

Linda

Beth

22nd December 2008, 09:57 AM

Exactly. You seem comfortable concluding that determinable gods don't exist (in reference to your statement that "[o]ther definitions of god are easily shown to be inconsistent and therefore, it's quite reasonable to conclude those gods don't exist"), and it seems reasonable to guess that you would continue to have confidence in whatever process allowed you to make that call in regards to those gods when it comes to future determinable gods, yet you say that you do not. Yes, I simply recognize that there are current and future definitions of god that are not determinable, just as their are mathematical statements that are not determinable.

Redundant in the sense of "superfluous, exceeding what is necessary."
Ah, I see your meaning now. Thanks.

Gnostic/agnostic and atheist.

Linda

This I must disagree on, just as I disagree that agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Since an individual can be an agnostic or gnostic theist rather than an agnostic or gnostic atheist, I don't consider it to be a useless qualifier at all. I can appreciate that according to other definitions of those terms it would seem rather useless. However, given that different definitions exist, it makes more sense to me to inquire how some one is using the terms rather than assuming they are redundant. People who use both terms together are generally indicating that they hold rather less certainty regarding the non-existance of god/s than those who use the term atheist alone whereas those who use agnostic alone are, IMO, usually indicating even less certainty, to the point of being actual fence-sitters without a strong inclination one way or the other.

The Atheist

22nd December 2008, 10:22 AM

Many Atheists claim certainty that an ID doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]

No, you have that wrong. What opponents of ID usually claim is that ideas and theories put forward by ID proponents are nonsensical loads of ridiculous pseudoscience masquerading as evidence and not worth using as toilet paper.

See, it's very simple - given that the evidence for ID is nil, it can only start with an a priori assumption that the universe/world/life is intelligently designed and isn't therefore worth bothering with.

When someone actually comes up with some evidence of ID, we'll debate it.

I believe the RCC has had someone looking for evidence of ID for quite some time. How's that working out so far? Herr RatZZinger due to make an ex cathedra comment on it yet?

Proof? Listen to your vaunted physicists with their uncertainties concerning the pre-Big Bang scenario and their speculations about multiple universes and type one and type two dimensions they might contain and the beings and creatures that these might in turn hold.

Of all possible theistic vs atheistic arguments, this is probably my favourite.

"Scientists don't know what happened 16 billion years ago."

Wow. In all that enormous wealth of real data we have amassed over thousands of years, the best attack you have is that our physicists have no idea about something which happened an immeasurable number of kilometres away and ~16,000,000,000 years ago.

I am off to church, you have convinced the hell out of me!

fls

22nd December 2008, 11:01 AM

Yes, I simply recognize that there are current and future definitions of god that are not determinable, just as their are mathematical statements that are not determinable.

It was my understanding that there are mathematical statements that are not determinable within a complete system, not that there are indeterminable statements. Maybe I need an example of what you mean.

This I must disagree on, just as I disagree that agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Since an individual can be an agnostic or gnostic theist rather than an agnostic or gnostic atheist, I don't consider it to be a useless qualifier at all. I can appreciate that according to other definitions of those terms it would seem rather useless. However, given that different definitions exist, it makes more sense to me to inquire how some one is using the terms rather than assuming they are redundant. People who use both terms together are generally indicating that they hold rather less certainty regarding the non-existance of god/s than those who use the term atheist alone whereas those who use agnostic alone are, IMO, usually indicating even less certainty, to the point of being actual fence-sitters without a strong inclination one way or the other.

I'm simply pointing out that I cannot find a point where we differ. If I try to make statements about certainty and uncertainty or knowledge that are different than mine, you deny them. Everyone seems confident that they have a way to consider agnosticism or atheism in a way that distinguishes their own views from those of others, yet an actual description of those views shows them to be pretty much the same. People go on about certainty or the ability to know something about the unknown, yet people's certainty about particular gods and uncertainty about others seems to be identical. The only real difference that I can see is that some people use agnosticism to make overly bold statements about the limits of our knowledge. But I suspect even that is a false-front.

If you can discover a way in which my views differ from yours (something not too trivial, though :)), then I will be happy to give you your 'agnoticism'.

Linda

Roadtoad

22nd December 2008, 11:25 AM

Beth

22nd December 2008, 11:56 AM

It was my understanding that there are mathematical statements that are not determinable within a complete system, not that there are indeterminable statements. Maybe I need an example of what you mean. That's what I was referring to. If we consider our universe to be a complete system (I'm not sure whether it is or not, but I think the mathematics underlying the current physical models makes that assumption) then it's reasonable to suppose there are indeterminable facts about our universe. The existance or not of a creator god strikes me as a leading contender for such an indeterminable statement.

I'm simply pointing out that I cannot find a point where we differ. If I try to make statements about certainty and uncertainty or knowledge that are different than mine, you deny them. Everyone seems confident that they have a way to consider agnosticism or atheism in a way that distinguishes their own views from those of others, yet an actual description of those views shows them to be pretty much the same. People go on about certainty or the ability to know something about the unknown, yet people's certainty about particular gods and uncertainty about others seems to be identical. The only real difference that I can see is that some people use agnosticism to make overly bold statements about the limits of our knowledge. But I suspect even that is a false-front.

If you can discover a way in which my views differ from yours (something not too trivial, though :)), then I will be happy to give you your 'agnoticism'.

Linda

Not all uncertainties are equal. While nearly all atheists will admit to harboring, at the very least, some sufficiently small uncertainty about the existance of any god, I think agnostics generally give the various probabilities significantly different weights.

I consider certain definitions of god, such as the non-intervening creator god and the pantheistic god as the totallity of the universe which has a consciousness of it's own to be completely indeterminable for us and as such, lacking other, more conclusive information, I rate the possibilities of existance and non-existance of those gods as equal. I gather you do not, so I think that would be a difference between our beliefs.

I also suspect that I consider the possibility of the existance of more traditional gods to have a considerably higher probability than you do, primarily because I think it possible that the near universal tradition of belief in a creator god might rest as easily on similar experiences as they do on similar needs that the various mythologies attempt to fill. I see it as possible that different human societies had different names for the same spiritual being(s) rather than each different belief system representing a unique mythological character(s). Sort of like different ancient tribes likely had different names for the various species of animals they typically encountered, but those different names might represent real types of animals rather than mythological ones.

Kil

22nd December 2008, 12:54 PM

People who use both terms together are generally indicating that they hold rather less certainty regarding the non-existance of god/s than those who use the term atheist alone whereas those who use agnostic alone are, IMO, usually indicating even less certainty, to the point of being actual fence-sitters without a strong inclination one way or the other.
I don’t speak for other people. I do often use both terms together, but not always.

I leave every door open just enough to allow for the consideration of new evidence. With regard to the god question, and really all that may exist outside of the realm in which I reside, I admit to a having no knowledge. Of course, I strongly doubt the existence of those other realms based on a lack of evidence to support the existence of that which is outside of nature. It’s because of my doubt that that I call myself agnostic, especially on the god question because that is where it usually comes up. Skepticism more precisely describes my approach to supernatural claims in general.

I know that many who identify as atheist take precisely the same position as I do with regard to the consideration of supernatural claims. As a skeptic, I default to doubt where evidence is lacking or of very poor quality.

I’m an atheist because I am not a theist. It’s as simple as that. After calling myself agnostic, to me, it’s redundant to add atheist as an identifier. I do it for people who, for some reason, probably for the sake of debates like this one, miss that I am a skeptic first.

One thing I am not is a fence sitter. Like all of the agnostics that I know, who also identify as skeptics, I choose to identify as agnostic on the question of god, because from a critical thinking standpoint, it best describes who I am and why I am a skeptical, at least in my approach to supernatural claims.

Come to think of it, because not all atheists and agnostics default to critical thinking, perhaps it would be best to simply identify as a skeptic, if that is what you are, and leave it at that…

The Atheist

22nd December 2008, 01:02 PM

Just tossing this into the mix:

Assuming there is a God, is it even appropriate to assume that prayer has any value at all? Isn't it pretty arrogant of a pissant collection of created entities to expect the world at large to be subdued to the will of one selfish "believer," all in the name of Faith? Would this not contribute to a view that God is either absent, non-existent, or uncaring?

Haha! I used that same principle the other day.

A christian was giving me a delightful anecdote about how some preacher was awarding bags of lollies as prizes to some kids for being especially goody-goody when he noticed that there were nowhere near enough to go around the number of kids. Panic! Never mind, there's nothing he can do now, so he steps up, does his sermon and then starts to hand out bags of lollies.

Even though there are far more kids than he had bags of lollies for, he never emptied the bag and every kid is holding their lollies! God works in mysterious ways!11!!

I just came back with "If god is quite able to feed lollies to a bunch of spotty, fat schoolchildren while other kids die screaming from hunger, then your god can get **********."

fls

22nd December 2008, 01:04 PM

That's what I was referring to. If we consider our universe to be a complete system (I'm not sure whether it is or not, but I think the mathematics underlying the current physical models makes that assumption) then it's reasonable to suppose there are indeterminable facts about our universe. The existance or not of a creator god strikes me as a leading contender for such an indeterminable statement.

Really? I've always had the impression that mathematics cares little for egocentric human endeavours. :)

Not all uncertainties are equal. While nearly all atheists will admit to harboring, at the very least, some sufficiently small uncertainty about the existance of any god, I think agnostics generally give the various probabilities significantly different weights.

I consider certain definitions of god, such as the non-intervening creator god and the pantheistic god as the totallity of the universe which has a consciousness of it's own to be completely indeterminable for us and as such, lacking other, more conclusive information, I rate the possibilities of existance and non-existance of those gods as equal. I gather you do not, so I think that would be a difference between our beliefs.

I also suspect that I consider the possibility of the existance of more traditional gods to have a considerably higher probability than you do, primarily because I think it possible that the near universal tradition of belief in a creator god might rest as easily on similar experiences as they do on similar needs that the various mythologies attempt to fill. I see it as possible that different human societies had different names for the same spiritual being(s) rather than each different belief system representing a unique mythological character(s). Sort of like different ancient tribes likely had different names for the various species of animals they typically encountered, but those different names might represent real types of animals rather than mythological ones.

It sounds like you consider various ideas to the extent that they are not excluded by the evidence. I haven't really seen you suggest things that are already excluded, so I'm not sure that we'd really differ all that much on residual probabilities. If you're suggesting that we differ on which of the various remaining possibilities are our favourites, you're probably right. But how could that be turned into a category difference?

Linda

Roadtoad

22nd December 2008, 01:12 PM

Haha! I used that same principle the other day.

A christian was giving me a delightful anecdote about how some preacher was awarding bags of lollies as prizes to some kids for being especially goody-goody when he noticed that there were nowhere near enough to go around the number of kids. Panic! Never mind, there's nothing he can do now, so he steps up, does his sermon and then starts to hand out bags of lollies.

Even though there are far more kids than he had bags of lollies for, he never emptied the bag and every kid is holding their lollies! God works in mysterious ways!11!!

I just came back with "If god is quite able to feed lollies to a bunch of spotty, fat schoolchildren while other kids die screaming from hunger, then your god can get **********."

Thank you, Sir! I think you've summed up my own disgust with the whole business.

Beth

22nd December 2008, 01:21 PM

Really? I've always had the impression that mathematics cares little for egocentric human endeavours. :) Yes, it's true that mathematics isn't one of the more caring philosophies. :)

It sounds like you consider various ideas to the extent that they are not excluded by the evidence. Yes, though we may differ on what possibilities we consider to be excluded by the evidence.

I haven't really seen you suggest things that are already excluded, so I'm not sure that we'd really differ all that much on residual probabilities. If you're suggesting that we differ on which of the various remaining possibilities are our favourites, you're probably right. But how could that be turned into a category difference? I can't say whether we'd differ on what you call teh 'residual' probabilities as you haven't given much indication of your thoughts regarding such definitions of god other than you seem to feel they are unnecessary. As far as a category difference, I don't know. It would depends on how the categories are defined I suppose. Some people tell me I must be an atheist since I consider belief to be far too strong a word for my feelings regarding the existance or non-existance of any god. Other people tell me I must be a theist because I'm usually arguing that POV on this newsgroup. [What can I say, I enjoy playing Devil's, er God's, advocate here.] Myself, I've claimed to be a devout agnostic ever since I first discovered the term back in my freshman year of college. It seemed to exactly fit my strong feeling of doubts regarding both the existance and non-existance of god. Few people who describe themselves as atheist seem to share my strong doubts regarding the non-existance of god. Instead, they usually weight their uncertainty as low and give the probability of any god existing as not significantly different from zero in their estimation.

fls

22nd December 2008, 02:32 PM

I can't say whether we'd differ on what you call teh 'residual' probabilities as you haven't given much indication of your thoughts regarding such definitions of god other than you seem to feel they are unnecessary.

I guess it depends upon whether or not you're talking about trying to come up with some over-arching meaning that isn't excluded by our current understanding, such as a first cause or pantheism. In that case, how does one go about assigning probabilities to various indistinguishable ideas? If you're talking about alternate explanations for various observations, I suppose one could assign probabilities to things like 'visitations from aliens'.

As far as a category difference, I don't know. It would depends on how the categories are defined I suppose. Some people tell me I must be an atheist since I consider belief to be far too strong a word for my feelings regarding the existance or non-existance of any god. Other people tell me I must be a theist because I'm usually arguing that POV on this newsgroup. [What can I say, I enjoy playing Devil's, er God's, advocate here.] Myself, I've claimed to be a devout agnostic ever since I first discovered the term back in my freshman year of college. It seemed to exactly fit my strong feeling of doubts regarding both the existance and non-existance of god. Few people who describe themselves as atheist seem to share my strong doubts regarding the non-existance of god. Instead, they usually weight their uncertainty as low and give the probability of any god existing as not significantly different from zero in their estimation.

I think deep down I can't believe in something someone else came up with. And if I come up with something, I already know that I just made it up. I think that's why principles discovered through science, like symmetry, are so appealing to me. I can trust that they aren't arbitrary.

Linda

zaphod2016

22nd December 2008, 04:08 PM

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god at the moment:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There, I think we can all agree with that. :D

I see two other options:

1. God is some form of "placebo effect" and is somehow affecting the physical world because people believe in him. (i.e. Santa Clause makes children happy, and inspires genrousity. Even though he doesn't exist in any physical sense, I could argue that "yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw0tWaVlBAY)".)

2. As Dawkins described: "the God of the gaps" theory, where God is eternally shrinking as knowledge expands (a view supported by KJV Genesis IMO)

If the question is: "do you believe in God?" my answer is "no", and so I am an "atheist"

If the question is: "do you believe God does not exist?" my answer is also "no", and so I am a "fence-sitting weasel". In my own defense, according to scripture I'm going to hell either way, so it's not as if I'm "hedging my bets"- I am simply being intellectually honest with myself.

I'm not sure its a binary switch. It stinks to me of a false dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma).

Beth

22nd December 2008, 07:26 PM

I guess it depends upon whether or not you're talking about trying to come up with some over-arching meaning that isn't excluded by our current understanding, such as a first cause or pantheism. In that case, how does one go about assigning probabilities to various indistinguishable ideas? Indistinguishable ideas? I'll interpret this to mean ideas which are distinguishable via the evidence we currently have. The general practice is to assign equal probability to the possible outcomes, which makes agnosticism a very rational choice for those types of conjectures.

I think deep down I can't believe in something someone else came up with. And if I come up with something, I already know that I just made it up. I think that's why principles discovered through science, like symmetry, are so appealing to me. I can trust that they aren't arbitrary.
Linda I'll presume you are aware that science was made up by other humans. :)
Darwin devised the theory of evolution. Einstein came up the theory of general relativity. I suspect that your issue with non-scientific endeavors isn't that they were created or discovered by other human beings. Perhaps something along the lines of the inability of non-scientific endeavors to be able to be indepedently verified by others.

arthwollipot

22nd December 2008, 10:17 PM

What's kind of fun about these threads is that we divide ourselves up into these various camps when it comes to how we want to describe our beliefs, but we all seem to have almost identical beliefs.Kinda reminds you of religion, huh? :D

phantomb

23rd December 2008, 01:18 AM

There are two possible claims one can make regarding the existence of a god at the moment:

1. The god exists.
2. The god does not exist.

There, I think we can all agree with that.

I see two other options:

1. God is some form of "placebo effect" and is somehow affecting the physical world because people believe in him. (i.e. Santa Clause makes children happy, and inspires genrousity. Even though he doesn't exist in any physical sense, I could argue that "yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw0tWaVlBAY)".)

If god is some form of "placebo effect" then god does not exist. Do I really have to change it again to read "There are two possible claims one can make regarding the physical existence of a god at the moment" to avoid this semantic game?

2. As Dawkins described: "the God of the gaps" theory, where God is eternally shrinking as knowledge expands (a view supported by KJV Genesis IMO)

So either the god actually is filling at least one of those gaps, in which case the god exists, or the god actually isn't filling any of those gaps, in which case the god does not exist.

If the question is: "do you believe in God?" my answer is "no", and so I am an "atheist"

If the question is: "do you believe God does not exist?" my answer is also "no", and so I am a "fence-sitting weasel". In my own defense, according to scripture I'm going to hell either way, so it's not as if I'm "hedging my bets"- I am simply being intellectually honest with myself.

I'm not sure its a binary switch. It stinks to me of a false dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma).

Likewise, it looks to me like you are intentionally playing semantic games in order to interpret my statement in such a way so as to avoid a dichotomy.

Radrook

23rd December 2008, 04:40 AM

I find the atheistic stance far more rational than this stance which of necessity requires a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of and relationships between belief, certainty (including it's fundamental relevance), belief revision, and possibility.

How am I misunderstanding the nature of and the relationship between belief and certainty?

fls

23rd December 2008, 04:55 AM

Indistinguishable ideas? I'll interpret this to mean ideas which are distinguishable via the evidence we currently have. The general practice is to assign equal probability to the possible outcomes, which makes agnosticism a very rational choice for those types of conjectures.

I suppose it makes sense if you've never heard of Fisher...

You can hardly pretend that the sample space is well-defined.

Linda

Radrook

23rd December 2008, 05:03 AM

Actually, it's not. This thread is about terminology, specifically what claims are communicated by the terms "atheist" and "agnostic."

And I assumed that the atheist claim is certainty that there is no God.

I should have qualified my statement by saying that some atheists are semi atheists hovering in the never-never land between atheist and agnostic and that my opinion only was to be applied to those who claim absolute certainty. Of course I was guided by my penchant for considering people who ridicule the ID idea as claiming certainty. Otherwise, why would they ridicule? But considering the human penchant and predisposition for semantic vagueness as a patina for profundity I guess I might have jumped the gun.

Very very few claim certainty, in my experience, assuming you mean absolute certainty without possibility of error. And I am not one of them, so I'm snipping most of your "god of the gaps" crap as irrelevant.

Does gloating and ridiculing those who postulate an ID indicate certainty? Perhaps I take it to indicate certainty since that's what it conveys.

BTW
Your response about doctors family and all the other balogna you mentioned to my original post I found irrelevant and unintelligible. Thought about asking for a clarification but let it go.

snip

Sort of like how one cannot but marvel at the inconsistency and hubris of those who claim not only to know that there is a creator of the universe, but to know what he wants?

Well, sorry but I find the atheistic stance far more worthy of marveling at. Similar to a perverse convenient sort of self-inflicted blindness.

Beth

23rd December 2008, 05:28 AM

I suppose it makes sense if you've never heard of Fisher...

You can hardly pretend that the sample space is well-defined.

Linda

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by this. What theorems of Fisher are you thinking of? I think the sample space can easily be defined into a binary set of outcomes. A non-interventionist intelligent creator god exists outside of our universe or doesn't. That's a pretty well defined sample space. The universe is a conscious entity or it isn't. That too is a pretty well defined sample space.

Dunstan

23rd December 2008, 10:08 AM

And I assumed that the atheist claim is certainty that there is no God.

A strange assumption for you to make, given that many people have noted in this very thread that they consider themselves atheists but do not claim certainty.

I should have qualified my statement by saying that some atheists are semi atheists hovering in the never-never land between atheist and agnostic and that my opinion only was to be applied to those who claim absolute certainty.

Could you give some examples of atheists who claim certainty? I'm sure there must be some out there, but I'm not aware of any.

Of course I was guided by my penchant for considering people who ridicule the ID idea as claiming certainty. Otherwise, why would they ridicule?

One can acknowledge that absolute certainty does not exist without agreeing that all possibilities are equally likely. Some ideas are absurd and deserving of ridicule. Just because we don't know for certain exactly what "caused" the Big Bang doesn't mean that someone who seriously claims the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure can't be laughed at.

But considering the human penchant and predisposition for semantic vagueness as a patina for profundity I guess I might have jumped the gun. Does gloating and ridiculing those who postulate an ID indicate certainty? Perhaps I take it to indicate certainty since that's what it conveys.

I don't why it conveys that to you. Essentially what you're saying is that ridicule is never appropriate, because one cannot be certain of anything. I think that's an uncommon position to take.

BTW
Your response about doctors family and all the other balogna you mentioned to my original post I found irrelevant and unintelligible. Thought about asking for a clarification but let it go.

Actually, you didn't let it go. Letting it go would mean just ignoring it and not making a comment. What you did is just passive-aggressive.

The point was this: None of us can know with absolute certainty who our biological father is. Even DNA tests have a non-zero margin of error, and most of us don't even have the benefit of such a test. But, unless they have some specific reason to question their paternity, practically no one goes around making all the absurd qualifiers about who their father is in my mock dialogue, even in a doctor's office where the conversation is confidential and it's medically important to be accurate. And certainly no one would jump on the assertion "X is my father" with a critique about "you're claiming certainty, and that's impossible!" Everyone understands that it's impossible to know such a thing with absolute certainty, and nobody feels the need to create a special word for "person who is absolutely positively my father."

Yet people apply a completely different standard when it comes to god claims, and accuse atheists of claiming absolute 100% certainty. I don't see why we need a special word "atheist" to connote "one who claims to know with certainty that there is no god," since (a) we don't do it for any other assertion I can think of;* and (b) such people (the certain ones, I mean) seem to be incredibly rare. Whereas we do need a word to describe the comparatively large group of people who do not believe in the existence of a god, but do not necessarily claim certainty on that (or any other) point; "agnostic" doesn't suffice, in my opinion, because it seems to be working overtime covering those who haven't reached even a provisional opinion on the subject, as well as those who claim it is impossible to know, and all the other definitions given in this thread and others like it.

*-indeed, we don't even have a parallel word for someone who claims the existence of god with absolute certainty. When a theist admits that "yes, I could be wrong, it could be that my god doesn't exist," I've seen people exclaim "aha! So you're an agnostic!" But perhaps that kind of thing does go on at other forums.

Well, sorry but I find the atheistic stance far more worthy of marveling at. Similar to a perverse convenient sort of self-inflicted blindness.

Well, we all get to choose at what we will marvel.

Jono

23rd December 2008, 12:11 PM

The terms are even more subjective than "religious" or "deitist", so here enters the personal opinion of that atheist and agnostic mean. Without a doubt, if they are distinct from each other, we will still find self-ascribed atheists who are actually agnostic and vice versa.

Personally, agnostic is the absence of belief or disbelief in God (disbelief can oft be another form of belief), you simply do not entertain an active attachment in "there is no God" or "there is a God", moreso a commonplaced "maybe, who knows".
Atheists would then be those who can relate to the thought; "I believe that there is no God" and Agnostics to "I do not know/care/believe either way".
Science by itself ideally is agnostic, since it does not presume to set out to prove or disprove existence of God, as it does not come into play. Whereas, atheistic approach would be the thought that since science does not provide any evidence for God, there is no God.

It has little to do with 100% certainty, since that is in itself a mythical position one tends to hold when kidding oneself, or so I've heard.

Dunstan

23rd December 2008, 12:43 PM

When a theist admits that "yes, I could be wrong, it could be that my god doesn't exist," I've seen people exclaim "aha! So you're an agnostic!" But perhaps that kind of thing does go on at other forums.

Oops -- I meant to say I haven't seen people exclaim that. Too late to edit now.

fls

23rd December 2008, 01:00 PM

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean by this. What theorems of Fisher are you thinking of? I think the sample space can easily be defined into a binary set of outcomes. A non-interventionist intelligent creator god exists outside of our universe or doesn't. That's a pretty well defined sample space. The universe is a conscious entity or it isn't. That too is a pretty well defined sample space.

Well, with that sort of thinking, I'll have to bow out of this conversation with you. I just realized that I'm going to be struck by lightning or not struck by lightning this afternoon, so I better take care of a few more Christmas presents instead (can't like the look of those odds).

Linda

Beth

23rd December 2008, 04:00 PM

Well, with that sort of thinking, I'll have to bow out of this conversation with you. I just realized that I'm going to be struck by lightning or not struck by lightning this afternoon, so I better take care of a few more Christmas presents instead (can't like the look of those odds).

Linda

Oh, honestly Linda, did you forget we were discussing what you had described as being "indistinguishable ideas"? There is a difference between claiming all binary sample spaces have equal probilities for the two possible outcomes and saying that when there is no evidence to base probability on, it's rational to consider the two binary outcomes as having equal probability until some additional evidence is available. You know the difference between those two situations as least as well as I do, so why the disingenuousness?

Jono

23rd December 2008, 05:27 PM

Oh, honestly Linda, did you forget we were discussing what you had described as being "indistinguishable ideas"? There is a difference between claiming all binary sample spaces have equal probilities for the two possible outcomes and saying that when there is no evidence to base probability on, it's rational to consider the two binary outcomes as having equal probability until some additional evidence is available. You know the difference between those two situations as least as well as I do, so why the disingenuousness?

I believe Chris Langan and his model for the universe set out to establish God's existence in terms of probability as an intelligent designer through binary sample spaces. I haven't really read much on his work, and I do not really care enough to do so, albeit it is a nice curiosa, with one of the allegedly smartest men on Earth and a devout ID'er of his own brand to boot.

Beth

23rd December 2008, 05:54 PM

I believe Chris Langan and his model for the universe set out to establish God's existence in terms of probability as an intelligent designer through binary sample spaces. I haven't really read much on his work, and I do not really care enough to do so, albeit it is a nice curiosa, with one of the allegedly smartest men on Earth and a devout ID'er of his own brand to boot.

I don't believe that's possible, but then again, that's why I'm a strong agnostic on certain definitions of god. :D

fls

23rd December 2008, 09:16 PM

Oh, honestly Linda, did you forget we were discussing what you had described as being "indistinguishable ideas"? There is a difference between claiming all binary sample spaces have equal probilities for the two possible outcomes and saying that when there is no evidence to base probability on, it's rational to consider the two binary outcomes as having equal probability until some additional evidence is available. You know the difference between those two situations as least as well as I do, so why the disingenuousness?

Yes, I do know the difference between the two. In one case, you know that you are suggesting something that's very silly. In the other case, you don't know that you are suggesting something that's very silly. However, my unwillingness to pretend that ignorance serves to make latter rational is an accurate representation of my thoughts on this matter - i.e. your claim of disingenuousness is unwarranted.

Linda

Jono

23rd December 2008, 09:49 PM

I don't believe that's possible, but then again, that's why I'm a strong agnostic on certain definitions of god. :D

Hear hear. Or should I say, hear here or hear there?

arthwollipot

23rd December 2008, 10:02 PM

And I assumed that the atheist claim is certainty that there is no God.Here it is again. My thesis is correct.

To a theist, belief is the default assumption. Theists believe that one must take a postive step to disbelieve.

Beth

24th December 2008, 08:19 AM

Yes, I do know the difference between the two. In one case, you know that you are suggesting something that's very silly. In the other case, you don't know that you are suggesting something that's very silly. However, my unwillingness to pretend that ignorance serves to make latter rational is an accurate representation of my thoughts on this matter - i.e. your claim of disingenuousness is unwarranted.

Linda

You are right, I don't know that I am suggesting something that's very silly. Instead I find your comparison ludicrous because you are comparing setting the probability of two unknown and undistinguishable conjectures to a situation with well known extreme probalities that have been computed based on estalished and verifiable evidence and saying the one should be evaluated as the other. I've no idea why you would conclude that and felt you understood enough about statistics to known that such an assessment is, well, silly.

I can, if you like, give you a couple of reasons why statisticians like the uniform distribution for setting probabilities when no other evidence exists to distinguish the different possibilities. But I won't bore you with things like the minimax theorem unless you ask me to.

How is it you feel comfortable setting the probability of those particular "indistinguishable ideas" so close to a 0/1 distribution (indicating near certainty) that you find it very silly to use the choice of .5/.5 for such situations?

Earlier you said we didn't "differ all that much on residual probabilities". Do you see now where we differ? Do you find it a significant enough difference to warrant making a distinction between agnostic and atheist?

fls

24th December 2008, 09:50 AM

You are right, I don't know that I am suggesting something that's very silly. Instead I find your comparison ludicrous because you are comparing setting the probability of two unknown and undistinguishable conjectures

This part needs clarification from me. When I initially mentioned indistinguishable ideas, I made reference to several different god concepts, all of which are formulated in such a way as to make them consistent with what we already know about the nature of the universe. The reason that they are indistinguishable is the same reason that they are not inconsistent with what we already know - a universe in which they are present is the same as a universe in which they are not present. So when I first mentioned assigning probabilities to these various ideas, it was with the idea of distributing probabilities among a hodge-podge assortment of more or less well-formulated ideas. You subsequently changed it to considering each idea individually, as though there is only one possible idea and only one distinction to be made in the set of all possible ideas.

to a situation with well known extreme probalities that have been computed based on estalished and verifiable evidence and saying the one should be evaluated as the other.

I said that in order to attempt (vainly, as it turned out) to illustrate to you where you had gone wrong. If you are talking about using a uniform distribution in order to form a probability distribution, you fill that set with values that are all equally probable. If you don't know the probability for each value, then you fill it with all possible occurrences/examples. For the lightning example, you fill it full of all those times when I am not struck by lightning in addition to adding the one (or maybe more, I guess) time that I am. You don't simply fill it with one example of each. If you wish to understand the probability that the universe is a conscious entity, you fill it with all the examples where it is not a conscious entity in addition to the examples where it is. You don't simply pick one example of each.

I can, if you like, give you a couple of reasons why statisticians like the uniform distribution for setting probabilities when no other evidence exists to distinguish the different possibilities. But I won't bore you with things like the minimax theorem unless you ask me to.

I am already familiar with those ideas. Please don't hide behind the use of technical terms.

How is it you feel comfortable setting the probability of those particular "indistinguishable ideas" so close to a 0/1 distribution (indicating near certainty) that you find it very silly to use the choice of .5/.5 for such situations?

Because I recognize that you have incorrectly filled your uniform distribution.

Earlier you said we didn't "differ all that much on residual probabilities". Do you see now where we differ? Do you find it a significant enough difference to warrant making a distinction between agnostic and atheist?

I wanted to avoid making the distinction the result of faulty reasoning.

Linda

Beth

24th December 2008, 10:53 AM

This part needs clarification from me. When I initially mentioned indistinguishable ideas, I made reference to several different god concepts, all of which are formulated in such a way as to make them consistent with what we already know about the nature of the universe. The reason that they are indistinguishable is the same reason that they are not inconsistent with what we already know - a universe in which they are present is the same as a universe in which they are not present. Thank you for the clarification. I had mentioned two specific such concepts and thought you were referring to them.

So when I first mentioned assigning probabilities to these various ideas, it was with the idea of distributing probabilities among a hodge-podge assortment of more or less well-formulated ideas. That would explain your criticism that it was not a well-defined sample space.
You subsequently changed it to considering each idea individually, as though there is only one possible idea and only one distinction to be made in the set of all possible ideas.
I was defining the sample space I was referring to, not changing anything but attempting to clarify what we were discussing.
I said that in order to attempt (vainly, as it turned out) to illustrate to you where you had gone wrong. It didn't work because that was not an error I was making, I simply felt it was a ludicrous analogy.
If you are talking about using a uniform distribution in order to form a probability distribution, you fill that set with values that are all equally probable. If you don't know the probability for each value, then you fill it with all possible occurrences/examples. For the lightning example, you fill it full of all those times when I am not struck by lightning in addition to adding the one (or maybe more, I guess) time that I am. You don't simply fill it with one example of each. If you wish to understand the probability that the universe is a conscious entity, you fill it with all the examples where it is not a conscious entity in addition to the examples where it is. You don't simply pick one example of each. A binomial sample space is created by placing all possible outcomes into one of two categories. Probabilities are computed by looking as all the different ways each outcome can occur. Thus the relative frequency of each outcome is assessed and a probability assigned based on that. You're correct about all that. But to move beyond the 50/50 assessment, you have to have some idea of the possible configurations of a universe like ours and which would result in it having consciousness and which would not. Do you feel you have such knowledge and can make such an assessment with greater accuracy for that reason? I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

I am already familiar with those ideas. Please don't hide behind the use of technical terms.
I thought you might be, which is why I didn't regale you with explanations of what it is and why I choose to use it in this situation. I'm not hiding behind anything, I'm attempting to explain my point of view and why I find it rational rather than silly.

Because I recognize that you have incorrectly filled your uniform distribution. My choices are not incorrect; they are simply different than yours. I see no reason given for why your choices are so superior that you term mine 'very silly'.

I wanted to avoid making the distinction the result of faulty reasoning.

Linda Understandable, as doing so would be an example of faulty reasoning. Making different choices for unknown probabilities in the situations we are discussing is hardly an example of faulty reasoning. The minimax approach is not the only choice in evaluating such estimates of probabilities, but it is a reasonable one.

So, do you find those differences sufficient to merit having different terms, agnostic and atheist, for the beliefs?

I may not be able to respond again until after Christmas. So I'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a merry Christmas.

fls

24th December 2008, 12:33 PM

A binomial sample space is created by placing all possible outcomes into one of two categories. Probabilities are computed by looking as all the different ways each outcome can occur. Thus the relative frequency of each outcome is assessed and a probability assigned based on that. You're correct about all that. But to move beyond the 50/50 assessment, you have to have some idea of the possible configurations of a universe like ours and which would result in it having consciousness and which would not.

I have bolded your error. There is nothing special about 50/50 that makes it the default assessment.

Do you feel you have such knowledge and can make such an assessment with greater accuracy for that reason? I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

My initial question was rhetorical for just that reason.

I thought you might be, which is why I didn't regale you with explanations of what it is and why I choose to use it in this situation. I'm not hiding behind anything, I'm attempting to explain my point of view and why I find it rational rather than silly.
My choices are not incorrect; they are simply different than yours. I see no reason given for why your choices are so superior that you term mine 'very silly'.

Your choices are unjustifiable. Regardless of what technical jargon you wish to hide behind, all you are doing is assuming that which you are trying to prove. You wish to justify the rationality of your choice by making all choices equivalent. And you do this by assuming that all the choices are equivalent. It's faulty reasoning regardless of whether or not I choose to call you on it.

Understandable, as doing so would be an example of faulty reasoning. Making different choices for unknown probabilities in the situations we are discussing is hardly an example of faulty reasoning.

The fault is not in making different choices. The fault is in thinking that you've made a rational choice.

The minimax approach is not the only choice in evaluating such estimates of probabilities, but it is a reasonable one.

The minimax approach is not something that allows you to evaluate estimates in the absence of information, though. It still requires assumptions on your part.

Starting with an assumption and running it through a machine does not magically legitimize it.

So, do you find those differences sufficient to merit having different terms, agnostic and atheist, for the beliefs?

I may not be able to respond again until after Christmas. So I'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas to you to.

Linda

Beth

26th December 2008, 08:09 AM

Linda,

I like to take this opportunity to let you know how much I have enjoyed our conversation. It's always a pleasure to discuss these matters with someone of your intelligence and thoughtfulness.

A binomial sample space is created by placing all possible outcomes into one of two categories. Probabilities are computed by looking as all the different ways each outcome can occur. Thus the relative frequency of each outcome is assessed and a probability assigned based on that. You're correct about all that. But to move beyond the 50/50 assessment, you have to have some idea of the possible configurations of a universe like ours and which would result in it having consciousness and which would not.

I have bolded your error. There is nothing special about 50/50 that makes it the default assessment. Actually, yes is it special. It is the choice that minimizes the maximum possible error for a binomial distribution. That is what I meant when I brought up the minimax theorem, which you claimed to be familiar with. As such, it is a fairly popular choice for situations without evidence to otherwise distinguish between the possibilities. It is not the only criteria someone might use, so I don't claim it to be the ONLY rational choice. By what criteria do you find the 50/50 assessment so wrong as to consider it irrational and unjustifiable?

Do you feel you have such knowledge and can make such an assessment with greater accuracy for that reason? I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

My initial question was rhetorical for just that reason.

So, you don’t have any idea how to set the probabilities, but the choice of equal weights is an irrational one? I don’t follow this reasoning at all.

I thought you might be, which is why I didn't regale you with explanations of what it is and why I choose to use it in this situation. I'm not hiding behind anything, I'm attempting to explain my point of view and why I find it rational rather than silly.
My choices are not incorrect; they are simply different than yours. I see no reason given for why your choices are so superior that you term mine 'very silly'.

Your choices are unjustifiable. Regardless of what technical jargon you wish to hide behind, all you are doing is assuming that which you are trying to prove. You wish to justify the rationality of your choice by making all choices equivalent. And you do this by assuming that all the choices are equivalent. It's faulty reasoning regardless of whether or not I choose to call you on it. The ‘technical jargon’ you scorn is the justification of setting the probability of the two choices to be equal. You complain about ‘faulty reasoning’ on my part with an argument that makes assumptions about my motivations. Further, my motivations, whatever they may be, don’t affect the rationality of my argument. All in all, this isn’t a well reasoned or rational response to what I said. It’s an emotional rejection of my argument without any consideration of the substance of it, presumably because you don’t like the conclusion or possibly because you don't follow the technical details of the argument.

The fault is not in making different choices. The fault is in thinking that you've made a rational choice.
What knowledge or assumptions lead you to believe that my 50/50 choice is an irrational one? As near as I can tell, your argument that it is not a rational choice amounts to no more than “because I say it’s not”.

The minimax approach is not the only choice in evaluating such estimates of probabilities, but it is a reasonable one.

The minimax approach is not something that allows you to evaluate estimates in the absence of information, though. You said you were familiar with this? It’s a criteria for selecting an estimate . It sets the criteria as the value that minimizes the maximum possible error.

It still requires assumptions on your part. Of course. Everything requires assumptions. By employing such a method, the assumptions are known and stated up front.

What is irrational about them?

What assumptions are you making that lead you to believe that my 50/50 choice is an irrational one?

Starting with an assumption and running it through a machine does not magically legitimize it. That’s not accurate. The ‘machine’ as you term it does not start with the assumption of a 50/50 assessment, but produces it as the best fit for the criteria selected. What is illegitimate about that?

So, do you find those differences sufficient to merit having different terms, agnostic and atheist, for the beliefs?

I’d still like to know your thoughts on this matter.

fls

26th December 2008, 10:39 AM

Actually, yes is it special. It is the choice that minimizes the maximum possible error for a binomial distribution.

I suspected that is what you were referring to. The problem is that it is not relevant to the choice that you are making.

It is useful when you are doing something like figuring out the maximum sample size that limits your error to a certain interval when you don't know in advance what that proportion is (such as the proportion of ideas that are true). But it provides no guidelines as to what the underlying proportion is, other than assuming it can approximate a normal distribution. All you can conclude is something like, "the proportion of true ideas to false ideas is within 3% of the proportion of true ideas to false ideas in my sample". But it doesn't give you any information about the measured value for the sample parameter, and that is the only information that is relevant for this question. There are no natural limits for this value.

That is what I meant when I brought up the minimax theorem, which you claimed to be familiar with. As such, it is a fairly popular choice for situations without evidence to otherwise distinguish between the possibilities. It is not the only criteria someone might use, so I don't claim it to be the ONLY rational choice. By what criteria do you find the 50/50 assessment so wrong as to consider it irrational and unjustifiable?

Consider these questions...

What proportion of people will be struck by lightning this year?
What proportion of people will drink water today?
What proportion of particles in the universe consist of anti-matter?

Other than assisting you in calculating sample size, please provide an example of how you would act on an assumption of a 50/50 distribution.

So, you don’t have any idea how to set the probabilities, but the choice of equal weights is an irrational one? I don’t follow this reasoning at all.

You have picked a number between one and a million. I am simply recognizing that your choice is not anything other than arbitrary.

The ‘technical jargon’ you scorn is the justification of setting the probability of the two choices to be equal.

I realize that you think it is. But there is a difference between knowing how to use a formula and knowing where to apply that formula and what kind of answer it gives you.

You complain about ‘faulty reasoning’ on my part with an argument that makes assumptions about my motivations. Further, my motivations, whatever they may be, don’t affect the rationality of my argument. All in all, this isn’t a well reasoned or rational response to what I said. It’s an emotional rejection of my argument without any consideration of the substance of it, presumably because you don’t like the conclusion or possibly because you don't follow the technical details of the argument.

I don't know what your motivations are. I was simply pointing out that you were committing a logical fallacy. If you think I am not following some technical details, simply describe them in greater detail for me. All along, it has looked to me like you were talking about minimizing the maximum possible error for a binomial distribution rather than providing a reasonable estimate of the measurement underlying that error.

What knowledge or assumptions lead you to believe that my 50/50 choice is an irrational one? As near as I can tell, your argument that it is not a rational choice amounts to no more than “because I say it’s not”.

Because, as far as we know, any other choice is equally probable.

You said you were familiar with this? It’s a criteria for selecting an estimate . It sets the criteria as the value that minimizes the maximum possible error.

Of course. Everything requires assumptions. By employing such a method, the assumptions are known and stated up front.

What is irrational about them?

What assumptions are you making that lead you to believe that my 50/50 choice is an irrational one?

That’s not accurate. The ‘machine’ as you term it does not start with the assumption of a 50/50 assessment, but produces it as the best fit for the criteria selected. What is illegitimate about that?

As I pointed out above, your assumption applies to the calculation of the error, but it doesn't apply to the value of the sample parameter. And it is the latter which is relevant.

I’d still like to know your thoughts on this matter.

I will let you know once you have addressed the issue that your choice of a value is arbitrary, and that the outcome for any decision-making will be sensitive to that value.

Linda

fls

26th December 2008, 12:58 PM

In support of the idea that assuming even odds leads you astray...

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

Linda

Beth

26th December 2008, 01:34 PM

I suspected that is what you were referring to. The problem is that it is not relevant to the choice that you are making.

It is useful when you are doing something like figuring out the maximum sample size that limits your error to a certain interval when you don't know in advance what that proportion is (such as the proportion of ideas that are true). But it provides no guidelines as to what the underlying proportion is, other than assuming it can approximate a normal distribution. All you can conclude is something like, "the proportion of true ideas to false ideas is within 3% of the proportion of true ideas to false ideas in my sample". But it doesn't give you any information about the measured value for the sample parameter, and that is the only information that is relevant for this question.

Samples don't have parameters, populations do. Statistics are computed from samples which lead to estimated values of the true population parameters.

There are no natural limits for this value.

Are we discussing the same value? I'm talking about the probability of the two outcomes of the sample spaces I defined earlier in this thread. There are natural limits for these values. Like all probabilities, they must lie between zero and one.

Consider these questions...

What proportion of people will be struck by lightning this year? I don't know, but this I could look up and find out. It will be a very small proportion.

What proportion of people will drink water today? This will be a number very close to 1.

What proportion of particles in the universe consist of anti-matter? A unknown parameter that has various values depending upon which physics theories you favor.

Other than assisting you in calculating sample size, please provide an example of how you would act on an assumption of a 50/50 distribution. In the first two situations, it would be rather ridiculous to do so because we all have personal experiences that it is rare for people to not drink water daily or to be struck by lighting. On the other hand, an assumption of a 50/50 value for anti-matter particles is a value that could be placed in various physics formulas to develop models of the creation and subsequent development of universes like our own.

I realize that you think it is. But there is a difference between knowing how to use a formula and knowing where to apply that formula and what kind of answer it gives you. Indeed there is. Is there any particular reason that you feel this choice of criteria (minimax) is inappropriate in this situation? Or is just because you don't like the outcome?

I don't know what your motivations are. I was simply pointing out that you were committing a logical fallacy. If you think I am not following some technical details, simply describe them in greater detail for me. All along, it has looked to me like you were talking about minimizing the maximum possible error for a binomial distribution rather than providing a reasonable estimate of the measurement underlying that error. I'm not following you at all here. What measurement? There is no measurement I am aware of, there is only a hypothosis and a sample space defined.

Because, as far as we know, any other choice is equally probable. Again, I don't follow you. If any other choice is equally probably, why is selecting the 50/50 one irrational? You seem to have selected a value of near certainty on one particular side. Why do you feel your choice is rational and mine is not if all are equally probable?

As I pointed out above, your assumption applies to the calculation of the error, but it doesn't apply to the value of the sample parameter. And it is the latter which is relevant. What are you talking about?

You have picked a number between one and a million. I am simply recognizing that your choice is not anything other than arbitrary.

I will let you know once you have addressed the issue that your choice of a value is arbitrary, and that the outcome for any decision-making will be sensitive to that value.
Well, you're close. I picked a number between zero and one. I don't feel it was an arbitrary choice any more that you feel your choice in regard to that value is arbitrary. However, there are different definitions of arbitrary. If you will provide me with your definition, I will be happy to let you know if I agree that my choice is arbitrary if you will let me know whether or not you feel your choice is arbitrary according to that definition. I will be happy to acknowledge that the outcome for any decision-making will be sensitive to that value though.

fls

26th December 2008, 03:58 PM

Samples don't have parameters, populations do. Statistics are computed from samples which lead to estimated values of the true population parameters.

Are we discussing the same value? I'm talking about the probability of the two outcomes of the sample spaces I defined earlier in this thread. There are natural limits for these values. Like all probabilities, they must lie between zero and one.

Change my statements to "but it doesn't give you any information about the measured value for the sample, and that is the only information that is relevant for this question" and "there are no natural limits for the odds for this value."

I don't know, but this I could look up and find out. It will be a very small proportion.

This will be a number very close to 1.

Okay, so how would your assumption that the probability for either is 50/50 be useful?

A unknown parameter that has various values depending upon which physics theories you favor. In the first two situations, it would be rather ridiculous to do so because we all have personal experiences that it is rare for people to not drink water daily or to be struck by lighting. On the other hand, an assumption of a 50/50 value for anti-matter particles is a value that could be placed in various physics formulas to develop models of the creation and subsequent development of universes like our own.

Yes, you could model various universes using various proportions and observe the results. What specific advantage does the choice of 50/50 give to you (above and beyond an additional data point)?

Indeed there is. Is there any particular reason that you feel this choice of criteria (minimax) is inappropriate in this situation? Or is just because you don't like the outcome?

As I have stated several times now, my criticism is that your choice is arbitrary. The principle of minimax may be useful in order to minimize the maximum error, but it provides no guidelines as to the value you are applying the error to. You have picked a number merely for convenience; there is no rational justification for your number over any other number.

This is your original statment:

"I consider certain definitions of god, such as the non-intervening creator god and the pantheistic god as the totallity of the universe which has a consciousness of it's own to be completely indeterminable for us and as such, lacking other, more conclusive information, I rate the possibilities of existance and non-existance of those gods as equal. I gather you do not, so I think that would be a difference between our beliefs."

You essentially state that you base your beliefs on a number pulled from thin air. You seem committed to this idea, so it appears to me that the difference between you and me is that I am uncomfortable basing my opinion on stuff I've made up while you are comfortable doing so.

I'm not following you at all here. What measurement? There is no measurement I am aware of, there is only a hypothosis and a sample space defined.

The possibility that there is a non-intervening creator god or that the universe has a consciousness.

Again, I don't follow you. If any other choice is equally probably, why is selecting the 50/50 one irrational? You seem to have selected a value of near certainty on one particular side. Why do you feel your choice is rational and mine is not if all are equally probable?

I haven't chosen a value.

What are you talking about?

The possibility that any one (or more) of the god ideas you have mentioned are true.

Well, you're close. I picked a number between zero and one. I don't feel it was an arbitrary choice any more that you feel your choice in regard to that value is arbitrary. However, there are different definitions of arbitrary. If you will provide me with your definition, I will be happy to let you know if I agree that my choice is arbitrary if you will let me know whether or not you feel your choice is arbitrary according to that definition.

Chosen, not according to logic or an underlying principle, but due to whim or caprice. I would choose to pick a number based on logic or an underlying principle, instead.

I will be happy to acknowledge that the outcome for any decision-making will be sensitive to that value though.

We are in agreement that your justification for 'agnosticism' is sensitive to the manner in which you choose a value for the possibility for any particular god. Unfortunately, this suggests that the difference between agnosticism and atheism is that agnostics' beliefs are arbitrary, rather than rational.

Linda

Beth

27th December 2008, 08:51 AM

Change my statements to "but it doesn't give you any information about the measured value for the sample, and that is the only information that is relevant for this question" and "there are no natural limits for the odds for this value." I'm sorry, but your statement still isn't making any sense to me. What sample? What measured value?

Okay, so how would your assumption that the probability for either is 50/50 be useful? I wouldn't make such an assumption in those cases because it wouldn't be useful. Why do you consider such examples appropriate analogies?

Yes, you could model various universes using various proportions and observe the results. What specific advantage does the choice of 50/50 give to you (above and beyond an additional data point)? In such models, a point estimate is needed to run the simulations. Minimizing the maximum error is a reasonable criteria to select the value used.

As I have stated several times now, my criticism is that your choice is arbitrary. The principle of minimax may be useful in order to minimize the maximum error, but it provides no guidelines as to the value you are applying the error to. You have picked a number merely for convenience; there is no rational justification for your number over any other number. I’m sorry you don’t understand/agree with this application of the minimax principle, but that doesn’t mean my choice is arbitrary. As I said before, the 50/50 number is a result of applying the minimax principle to the situation at hand. Claiming it isn’t appropriate (without providing any sort of reason as to why that would be) doesn’t make the fact that I used it an arbitrary or whimsical choice.

Again, I don't follow you. If any other choice is equally probably, why is selecting the 50/50 one irrational? You seem to have selected a value of near certainty on one particular side. Why do you feel your choice is rational and mine is not if all are equally probable?

I haven't chosen a value.

I realize you haven’t chosen a single value, but it’s clear from your previous posts that you hold a strong opinion on what are and are not reasonable values. Clearly, you don't feel the entire range of [0, 1] is equally likely because if you did, you would not consider my point estimate of .5 to be silly and irrational. You consider yourself atheist, which indicates that you place that value on the low end of that interval.

My guess is that you give it an interval estimate of something like [0, .1] or perhaps [0, .01] or perhaps even less, even though you likely don’t have a specific upper endpoint in mind. Is this an accurate assessment of your feelings? If not, could you please provide me with an interval you do consider to accurately reflect your feelings on the matter?

You seem committed to this idea, so it appears to me that the difference between you and me is that I am uncomfortable basing my opinion on stuff I've made up while you are comfortable doing so. Perhaps you are right. I am quite comfortable saying what I think is a reasonable estimate for the value of that number. Please keep in mind that I'm not claiming it's correct, only that it's a reasonable guess.

You, on the other hand, do not find such an estimate reasonable. From other things you've written, it appears that you feel it ought to be a significantly lower figure for the probability of a non-intervening creator god or a pantheistic god, but are not comfortable admitting that you have, in fact, made such an assessment.

Chosen, not according to logic or an underlying principle, but due to whim or caprice. I would choose to pick a number based on logic or an underlying principle, instead.

We are in agreement that your justification for 'agnosticism' is sensitive to the manner in which you choose a value for the possibility for any particular god. Unfortunately, this suggests that the difference between agnosticism and atheism is that agnostics' beliefs are arbitrary, rather than rational.

Linda

I’ve given you a mathematical justification for choosing a particular point estimate of 0.5 – the minimax principle. You, for some reason don’t consider this to be logical or rational. You don’t feel this is an appropriate application for that principle, but can give no reason for that. However, even if you disagree with me regarding the use of this principle, I don’t understand why you would consider using such criteria to be an arbitrary selection rather than a rational one. Perhaps you could explain to me how you feel someone might rationally arrive at an estimate, either a point or an interval estimate? How did you rationally arrive at your opinion?

BTW I do not consider it rational to claim that it isn't reasonable to have an estimated value for a probability while holding the opinion that one outcome is far more likely than the other.

yy2bggggs

27th December 2008, 10:00 AM

You, on the other hand, do not find such an estimate reasonable. From other things you've written, it appears that you feel it ought to be a significantly lower figure for the probability of a non-intervening creator god or a pantheistic god, but are not comfortable admitting that you have, in fact, made such an assessment.
...
I’ve given you a mathematical justification for choosing a particular point estimate of 0.5 – the minimax principle. You, for some reason don’t consider this to be logical or rational. You don’t feel this is an appropriate application for that principle, but can give no reason for that. However, even if you disagree with me regarding the use of this principle, I don’t understand why you would consider using such criteria to be an arbitrary selection rather than a rational one. Perhaps you could explain to me how you feel someone might rationally arrive at an estimate, either a point or an interval estimate? How did you rationally arrive at your opinion?

"That brings me to the fourth kind of attitude towards ideas, and that is that the problem is not what is possible. That's not the problem. The problem is what is probable, what is happening. ... [The] number of things that are possible is not fully appreciated by the average individual. And it is also not clear, then, to them, how many things that are possible must not be happening. That it's impossible that everything that is possible is happening. And there is too much variety, so most likely anything that you think of that is possible isn't true. In fact that's a general principle in physics theories; no matter what a guy thinks of, it's almost always false."
(Richard Feynman, taken from "The Meaning of It All", section III, This Unscientific Age)

Does that help?

fls

27th December 2008, 01:32 PM

I'm sorry, but your statement still isn't making any sense to me. What sample? What measured value?

The possibility that any particular idea, about which no information is given, is true, as modeled by a sample set of all possible ideas. A sample of randomly chosen ideas could provide an estimate of the proportion that are true within a particular margin of error.

I wouldn't make such an assumption in those cases because it wouldn't be useful. Why do you consider such examples appropriate analogies?

You stated that an assumption of 50/50 is useful. Why wouldn't it be useful in those situations?

In such models, a point estimate is needed to run the simulations. Minimizing the maximum error is a reasonable criteria to select the value used.

Except the 'value' you are estimating with your "minimizing the maximum error" criteria is not the proportion of matter to anti-matter, but rather the number of particles to sample in order for the characteristics of those particles to serve as a reasonable estimate of the proportion of matter to anti-matter in the universe.

I’m sorry you don’t understand/agree with this application of the minimax principle, but that doesn’t mean my choice is arbitrary. As I said before, the 50/50 number is a result of applying the minimax principle to the situation at hand. Claiming it isn’t appropriate (without providing any sort of reason as to why that would be) doesn’t make the fact that I used it an arbitrary or whimsical choice.

The only application of the minimax principle that you have offered up is the method by which one estimates sample size. You have yet to demonstrate any application of the minimax principle which addresses the issue of assumptions about the frequency of true ideas in the face of inadequate knowledge. Recognizing the situation under which the maximum variance occurs (50/50) is not even remotely the same as estimating the most likely situation your idea falls into.

I realize you haven’t chosen a single value, but it’s clear from your previous posts that you hold a strong opinion on what are and are not reasonable values. Clearly, you don't feel the entire range of [0, 1] is equally likely because if you did, you would not consider my point estimate of .5 to be silly and irrational. You consider yourself atheist, which indicates that you place that value on the low end of that interval.

My guess is that you give it an interval estimate of something like [0, .1] or perhaps [0, .01] or perhaps even less, even though you likely don’t have a specific upper endpoint in mind. Is this an accurate assessment of your feelings? If not, could you please provide me with an interval you do consider to accurately reflect your feelings on the matter?

I choose an interval of [0, 1].

Perhaps you are right. I am quite comfortable saying what I think is a reasonable estimate for the value of that number. Please keep in mind that I'm not claiming it's correct, only that it's a reasonable guess.

You, on the other hand, do not find such an estimate reasonable. From other things you've written, it appears that you feel it ought to be a significantly lower figure for the probability of a non-intervening creator god or a pantheistic god, but are not comfortable admitting that you have, in fact, made such an assessment.

My choice has nothing to do with the idea under consideration (it could be about unicorns or teacups orbiting Saturn if that will rid you of the idea that any of this represents some sort of prejudice against gods). It has to do with being wrong most of the time if you assume an idea has a 50/50 chance of being true.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

I’ve given you a mathematical justification for choosing a particular point estimate of 0.5 – the minimax principle. You, for some reason don’t consider this to be logical or rational. You don’t feel this is an appropriate application for that principle, but can give no reason for that.

Because I understand how the minimax problem works and that it can't answer this particular question in the absence of assumptions. You seem to think that raising the issue of measurement error is relevant. I do not understand why you cannot see how different these two issues are. I am going to think on this a bit and see if I can come up with a way to explain it that finally makes sense to you. It would help if you would read the Ioannidis paper carefully (if you haven't already). It may also help if you attempt to explain to me why you think an assumption about measurement error speaks to an assumption about the probability that an idea is true.

However, even if you disagree with me regarding the use of this principle, I don’t understand why you would consider using such criteria to be an arbitrary selection rather than a rational one.

Because you are estimating someone's IQ by measuring their height.

Perhaps you could explain to me how you feel someone might rationally arrive at an estimate, either a point or an interval estimate? How did you rationally arrive at your opinion?

I would consider, out of the vast totality of ideas that humans have had, how many of them have been false. And I would also consider whether we are any good at finding true ideas, considering that it took us 10's of thousands of years to realize even a few essential truths about the universe that were not obvious on informal observation.

Linda

Beth

28th December 2008, 10:28 AM

Linda,

First of all I want to thank you for your participation in this conversation. It is helpful in both examining my own ideas and understand other people's better.

I going to try to condense this post as it's getting too long to respond to each paragraph, particularly when several relate to the same misunderstanding.

I'm sorry, but your statement still isn't making any sense to me. What sample? What measured value?

The possibility that any particular idea, about which no information is given, is true, as modeled by a sample set of all possible ideas. A sample of randomly chosen ideas could provide an estimate of the proportion that are true within a particular margin of error.
Not at all what I was thinking of. Thank you for being more specific. I’ll try to relate this idea to our discussion now.

I wouldn't make such an assumption in those cases because it wouldn't be useful. Why do you consider such examples appropriate analogies?

You stated that an assumption of 50/50 is useful. Why wouldn't it be useful in those situations?

Because we have better ways to estimate those values and we already know that a reasonable expectation for such estimates will be very far from 50/50. We may have minimized our maximum error, but we can far more effectively minimize our average error by making use of the information we already have.

I don’t have any illusions about the disadvantages of of the minimax approach. The advantage I find useful with this approach is that it does not require any assumptions about the expected value of such an estimate.

In such models, a point estimate is needed to run the simulations. Minimizing the maximum error is a reasonable criteria to select the value used.

Except the 'value' you are estimating with your "minimizing the maximum error" criteria is not the proportion of matter to anti-matter, but rather the number of particles to sample in order for the characteristics of those particles to serve as a reasonable estimate of the proportion of matter to anti-matter in the universe. What I was using it to estimate, as you originally asked your question, was the proportion not the number of particles to sample. The minimax principle can be used to decide upon a value for an estimated parameter in the absence of sample data. I am NOT talking about using it to compute a sample size. I think this is a major misunderstanding between us and I'm going to skip responding to the portions of your post that I think relate to this misunderstanding.

Now that you are aware that I'm not talking about mimimizing sampling error, but estimating a parameter value without prior assumptions, do you still consider the result to be an arbitrary rather than rational choice?

I choose an interval of [0, 1].

My choice has nothing to do with the idea under consideration (it could be about unicorns or teacups orbiting Saturn if that will rid you of the idea that any of this represents some sort of prejudice against gods). It has to do with being wrong most of the time if you assume an idea has a 50/50 chance of being true. Ah, your prejudice is against point estimates then. Okay. Yes, any point estimate of the proportion has a probability equal to zero. Let’s switch to interval estimates then. Perhaps I can communicate my confusion with your position more clearly.

You chose the interval [0,1]. Do you consider the probability of the interval [0, .5) to be equal to that of the interval (.5, 1]? My sense is that you do NOT give them equal probabilities. That is why I keep asking about how you estimate that value. To me, your denial that you have such a value is inconsistent with finding .5 to be an irrational arbitrary choice for a point estimate. If you find the probabilities of the two intervals equal, then .5 is a very reasonable and rational choice for an estimate of that value. OTOH, if you find one interval to have greater probability than the other, then you are assessing and making an estimate of the value of that probability.

You seem to think that raising the issue of measurement error is relevant. I'm sorry. I guess I was using a bit of technical jargon. Sometimes I forget how much of my vocabulary is influenced by the training. This is measurement error in the sense that any probability falls into a larger class of mathematic constructs termed measures. It has nothing to do with measurement error in the sense of taking a sample and making a determination of the maximum error of any statistics computed from that sample. (Though that definition could be considered to fall out of the one I was using.) Instead, it has to do with making a point estimate for a parameter from a theoretical distribution without any prior knowledge of the value of that parameter other than it’s range.

I do not understand why you cannot see how different these two issues are. I am going to think on this a bit and see if I can come up with a way to explain it that finally makes sense to you. It would help if you would read the Ioannidis paper carefully (if you haven't already). It may also help if you attempt to explain to me why you think an assumption about measurement error speaks to an assumption about the probability that an idea is true. I hope my explanation above clears that up.

However, even if you disagree with me regarding the use of this principle, I don’t understand why you would consider using such criteria to be an arbitrary selection rather than a rational one.

Because you are estimating someone's IQ by measuring their height.
While estimating someone’s IQ by measuring their height would not be accurate enough to be useful, a slight correlation could be expected because malnourished children are stunted in both physical and mental development. It would not be a random choice – which is what I thought you were meaning as arbitrary. Are you meaning instead a choice which has a large average deviation from the true value?

Perhaps you could explain to me how you feel someone might rationally arrive at an estimate, either a point or an interval estimate? How did you rationally arrive at your opinion?

I would consider, out of the vast totality of ideas that humans have had, how many of them have been false. And I would also consider whether we are any good at finding true ideas, considering that it took us 10's of thousands of years to realize even a few essential truths about the universe that were not obvious on informal observation.

Thank you for answering my last question here. This answers my question regarding how you are setting an approximate value that I keep asking for earlier. Your consideration of the number of true ideas to false ideas is, I agree, a rational approach to making a preliminary estimation of that probability. You have to assume that the hypothesis in question is simply a random selection from that population and has not been subjected to selection bias - i.e. it is no more or less likely to be true than any other randomly chosen idea. While that's not an assumption I'm willing to make, if you're willing to acknowledge that assumption, I won't quarrel with it.

I have no problems with this approach as a rational one, I simply don't see it as the ONLY rational approach to the question. Incidently, I feel that that are also rational theistic arguments as well.

Do you feel your approach is the only rational approach, or can you provide me with an answer to the question immediately preceding this one that gives a result different from the one you like best?

fls

28th December 2008, 12:20 PM

Not at all what I was thinking of. Thank you for being more specific. I’ll try to relate this idea to our discussion now.

Yes. I realized that it was not at all what you were thinking of (that formed the basis of my point). I'll try to explain what I'm getting at. There are various ways to handle uncertainty. But we don't want to consider every possible way to deal with it, but rather those particular methods that allow us to be right most of the time. Your mention of minimax in relation to error is an example of a situation where one can use an assumption of 50/50 to maximize the possibility that you will be correct if you allow your measurement of a sample to serve as an estimate of a population parameter. I didn't really think that that was what you were trying to do, though (and you have confirmed this), so my question was, "in what way does this choice of technique, which does serve its purpose well when answering a different question, have any relevance when it comes to answering this (what assumptions can we make about the possibility of undetermined ideas that allows us to be right most of the time?) question?"

Because we have better ways to estimate those values and we already know that a reasonable expectation for such estimates will be very far from 50/50. We may have minimized our maximum error, but we can far more effectively minimize our average error by making use of the information we already have.

Exactly. We recognize that there are situations where assuming 50/50 does not minimize the possibility that we will be wrong.

I don’t have any illusions about the disadvantages of of the minimax approach. The advantage I find useful with this approach is that it does not require any assumptions about the expected value of such an estimate.

Sure, without assumptions, the value is undetermined. But that is contradicted by your choice of a specific value throughout this discussion.

Now that you are aware that I'm not talking about mimimizing sampling error, but estimating a parameter value without prior assumptions, do you still consider the result to be an arbitrary rather than rational choice?

I was aware all along that you were not talking about minimizing sampling error. I'm asking you to clarify the apparent contradiction between your choice of a value and your claim that you used a technique which would otherwise leave the value undetermined.

Ah, your prejudice is against point estimates then. Okay. Yes, any point estimate of the proportion has a probability equal to zero.

Oh, puhleeze.

Let’s switch to interval estimates then. Perhaps I can communicate my confusion with your position more clearly.

You chose the interval [0,1]. Do you consider the probability of the interval [0, .5) to be equal to that of the interval (.5, 1]? My sense is that you do NOT give them equal probabilities. That is why I keep asking about how you estimate that value. To me, your denial that you have such a value is inconsistent with finding .5 to be an irrational arbitrary choice for a point estimate. If you find the probabilities of the two intervals equal, then .5 is a very reasonable and rational choice for an estimate of that value. OTOH, if you find one interval to have greater probability than the other, then you are assessing and making an estimate of the value of that probability.

Was this supposed to make sense? The probability of any interval is wholly dependent upon defining whatever it is that you're talking about. If you are talking about a uniform distribution, then by definition the probability of each interval is the same.

I'm sorry. I guess I was using a bit of technical jargon. Sometimes I forget how much of my vocabulary is influenced by the training. This is measurement error in the sense that any probability falls into a larger class of mathematic constructs termed measures. It has nothing to do with measurement error in the sense of taking a sample and making a determination of the maximum error of any statistics computed from that sample. (Though that definition could be considered to fall out of the one I was using.) Instead, it has to do with making a point estimate for a parameter from a theoretical distribution without any prior knowledge of the value of that parameter other than it’s range.

Your choice of 50/50 shows that you have either made a measure or some assumptions.

I hope my explanation above clears that up.

Nope.

Thank you for answering my last question here. This answers my question regarding how you are setting an approximate value that I keep asking for earlier. Your consideration of the number of true ideas to false ideas is, I agree, a rational approach to making a preliminary estimation of that probability. You have to assume that the hypothesis in question is simply a random selection from that population and has not been subjected to selection bias - i.e. it is no more or less likely to be true than any other randomly chosen idea. While that's not an assumption I'm willing to make, if you're willing to acknowledge that assumption, I won't quarrel with it.

I actually would prefer a random selection from a selected population (i.e. I wouldn't make that assumption, so no worries).

I have no problems with this approach as a rational one, I simply don't see it as the ONLY rational approach to the question. Incidently, I feel that that are also rational theistic arguments as well.

I don't see it as the only rational approach, either.

Do you feel your approach is the only rational approach, or can you provide me with an answer to the question immediately preceding this one that gives a result different from the one you like best?

Can you restate what question you are referring to?

Linda

Eos of the Eons

29th December 2008, 02:15 AM

Why even bother with gods anymore? We know why droughts happen, and that praying won't do a darn thing. We know why fires whip through areas. We know why typhoons, floods, and other NATURAL disasters happen. It's not to pick on us or make us rethink our naughty gutter thoughts earlier in the day.

We know that if we are to live together that we should treat others as we wish to be treated. That drugs make people forget about that, and that some people are just born selfish.

We know this world will never be perfect.

I don't pray for anything, I work for it.

So why bother with gods at all? Why tell people to pray or go to hell? Why not worry more about life while we are living it rather than the death that won't matter?

I just don't get it. That is why I guess I'm an atheist, but I feel that word doesn't define how I feel. I don't believe because I don't get why people bother. I suppose they must get something out of being told that if they pray or something that some being will hold them in high esteem, though I don't know why that matters.

I'm a humanist. Not an atheist. Agnosticism is even weirder to me. You either believe and pray, or you don't.

I'll tell ardent believers that I'm agnostic so they don't bug me, but I'm lying. Heck, they are lying to me about some mystical hell, so I can lie back. If we're gonna play fantasy, then I'll make up stuff up too. Heck, they better not poo poo my belief in unicorns then!

Such a mess, with so many religions, all vying for you undying commitment. As a person who never had a religious background, I don't know why people get away with the things they do in the name of crazy beliefs.

I just shake my head and wonder why people get to judge me. Well, your religion ain't perfect compared to others. Why do you figure you get to say it is? Why the tunnel vision? Why the denunciation of other fellow humans that are just different in one small way?

Why make life hell over one stupid thing? Wake up and let's all just get along. We're all HUMAN. We have knowledge unlike any before. Lay down all this nuttery and let's just get on with living.

29th December 2008, 02:42 AM

I think the definitions are so hopelessly muddled right now, with substantial numbers of people claiming that "their" definition is correct, that in a sense the distinction doesn't matter. No matter what you call yourself, you're going to need to explain which definition you're using anyway.

very very true.

i see it that way.
Agnostics do not claim there is no God, they will correctly say, they dont know.
Atheists will claim there is no God.

I was born as an Agnostic like everyone else, then i was learned some theisms. and ended up as an Atheist because all those religions didnt make sence to me.

but as an Atheist i must admit, the most rational position is the agnostic position.

Atheists are like theists. they claim something they cannot know.
so i am a beliver, i belive there is no god. but cant prove it.

Dysphemist

29th December 2008, 05:36 AM

We know... that some people are just born selfish.

No one is born selfish. :jaw-dropp

29th December 2008, 05:43 AM

No one is born selfish. :jaw-dropp

isnt every baby very selfish? isnt it until much later it learns sharing?

fls

29th December 2008, 06:05 AM

Beth,

The discussion gets confusing as it gets broken up into bits pieces, so I'm going to regroup.

The question is...what strategy allows us to be right most of the time? what should we assume to be the possibility that an idea is true?

You suggest that a reasonable assumption is a probability of 50/50, and that the strategy you used to come up with that number is minimax. Now, I have criticized the idea that minimax really gives you a result that is 50/50 under circumstances that are relevant to the question or that it gives you a specific value prior to making specifications or measurements. However, those details aren't critical to answering the question. Regardless of what number you arrive at, what we really want to know is whether it performs as intended...does its use allow us to be right most of the time?

The problem is that your number fails miserably. As demonstrated in the Ioannidis paper, an assumption of 50/50 means that we will be wrong most of the time. We don't want to be right one time in a thousand or even one time in ten. We want to be right more than half the time. So even if it were true that minimax can help you choose a value that minimizes the maximum error in the absence of constraints, that maximum error is far too large to serve as a guide in a way that is even remotely useful.

My complaint isn't that it doesn't match what probability I wish to assign to the existence of gods or that it's not what the specific technique that I would choose to use. My complaint is that it's useless for the purpose of trying not to be wrong most of the time.

Linda

calebprime

29th December 2008, 06:26 AM

No one is born selfish. :jaw-dropp

isnt every baby very selfish? isnt it until much later it learns sharing?

"Selfish" needs to be defined, a little.

Self-absorbed? Greedy? Oblivious to others? Manipulative? Bullying? Incapable of empathy? Noncomformist? Solipsistic? Aware of, but uninterested in the thoughts and feelings of others?

Babies are many of these things, but you start to see a sense of basic fairness in the way toddlers play with each other.

My son wasn't really capable of having a 2-way conversation 'til around the age of 8, but he wasn't cruel, manipulative, or greedy.

Composers are self-absorbed without necessarily being greedy or manipulative.

Beth

29th December 2008, 07:46 AM

Agnosticism is even weirder to me. You either believe and pray, or you don't.

I don't believe but I still pray. How do you classify that as anything but agnostic? I find prayer helpful, as do many people. God is not required in order to benefit from the activity.

Linda: I am reflecting on the things you have written. I'll likely engage with you again on the subject later as I find your comments and questions helpful to my thinking process. It may be in a different thread as I'll likely mull things over for a while.

Ordover

29th December 2008, 08:00 AM

They way I see is this:

Athiests often present themselves as wanting to convnce "believers" that they have no foundation to believe in God, and should stop doing so.

Agnostits mostly feel that while they, personally, have not seen convincing evidence of the existence of God, if someone else feels there is convincing evidence that a God or God exists, they should go ahead and believe what they want, "an it harm none."

Uncle Otto

29th December 2008, 08:49 AM

from Dictator C------

"Atheists are like theists. they claim something they cannot know.
so i am a beliver, i belive there is no god. but cant prove it. "

I am an atheist. I have never met another atheist who ever made the claim that they knew something that they did not know. Not one. And I've met more than a few. Not to say there can't be any someplace---I've just never encountered any of them if there are.

IMO, and in my actual life experiences, those who, as adults at least, identify themselves as agnostics are:

a) People who have not bothered to do any research into the history and actual meanings of the terms---"atheist or agnostic"------ or---

b) They are in denial about their own atheism, and use the term "agnostic" to make it more socially acceptable for themselves in their day to day lives, to sugar-coat their lack of belief in order to mollify others----or----

c) Both a and b apply, because in order to truthfully identify as either an atheist or an agnostic, one certainly need not be well read in the literature on the subject, nor be in willful denial. Anyone can claim to be either without having done their homework on the subject.

I have an acquaintance who does this all the time. He will tell you straight up that he doesn't believe in anything like a god, yet he refuses to admit he's an atheist unless you drag it out of him. It's like there is a complete disconnect between actually being an atheist, and using the most basic, simple word that describes it in front of somebody else.

You are making the common error of assuming that all atheists make the positive statement that "there is no such thing as god", when that is not the case. Unless you had attached some other meaning to your statement that I missed somehow.

And you were born not only agnostic, but atheistic too. No newborn infant ever entertained a belief in anything, much less an abstract concept like "god". They had to learn all that later on in life from other people. They were born "without theism". Which makes all infants atheistic.

This thread, like many others I've seen about the exact same thing, at other message boards, and in print will, sadly, probably go nowhere. Too many will not agree on the meaning of two very simple terms in order to keep differentiating themselves from one another. And above all---to distance themselves from the oft maligned label of "atheist".

And in that respect, I regret that Huxley ever coined the word "agnostic". It has done nothing to advance the causes of secularism of any stripe, and has instead caused nothing but confusion among those who are theistic, and both confusion and division among those who are not. It has become about as meaningful a term now as "spiritual". In order for anyone to come up with a universally accepted definition of "agnosticism", there must firstly be in place an equally accepted definition of "atheism", which even a cursory reading of this thread indicates doesn't exist yet either.

To re-quote part of your post-----

"i belive there is no god."

You are an atheist by your own description, and saying you are also an agnostic doesn't change that fact. I will hazard a guess here and say that at least a large majority of those who openly identify as agnostic, are also definitely atheistic. They just don't want to use the other "a" word out loud, for fear of possible negative reactions from others, at least within society at large in the U.S.

I'd say this was just my 2¢ worth again, but I seem to have run out of pennies.;)

Beth

29th December 2008, 10:47 AM

Beth,

The discussion gets confusing as it gets broken up into bits pieces, so I'm going to regroup.

The question is...what strategy allows us to be right most of the time? what should we assume to be the possibility that an idea is true?

I think the regrouping is helpful. To clarify something, in reviewing what we've been discussing, I found this (Minimax criterion in statistical decision theory) wikipedia definition of minimax to be the one I've been using.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax#Minimax_criterion_in_statistical_decision_ theory

Is this the one that you've been thinking of?

ETA: I think the one immediately below it, the Bayes estimator in the presence of a prior distribution Π" is the one you are advocating. Both are acceptable rational approaches. The choice of which one is best is not a given, but dependent on the preferences you have regarding loss - i.e. the cost of an error.

Your choice requires the specification of a distribution for the parameter itself. My choice requires the specification of a loss function for the range of parameter values, but does not require an assumption regarding the distribution of the parameter itself. I find the uniform distribution to be adequate for the loss function.

What I think is most likely is that we have each chosen a 'rational' approach based on the outcome we currently prefer. I know I have. I don't deny it or pretend otherwise. I just don't see your choice as being higher on the rational/arbitrary scale than mine. I feel the same way about rational arguments for theism. I could choose any of three and feel I was making rational choice. My preference was known to me before I had a word for it. I gather that for many many people of all persuations, that is true. Many of the atheists posting here have indicated they knew they were an atheist before they were an adolescent.

Choices formed in childhood based on strong innate feelings about the matter indicate to me that our attitudes about the matter are typically formed first and our reasoning to justify the why's of it later.

Thanks for the conversation. It's been quite illuminating for me. I am interested in what other choices you find rational and why if you would care to tell about them.

Beth

fls

29th December 2008, 12:11 PM

What I think is most likely is that we have each chosen a 'rational' approach based on the outcome we currently prefer. I know I have. I don't deny it or pretend otherwise. I just don't see your choice as being higher on the rational/arbitrary scale than mine.

That makes it clearer, since I do not know what you consider rational, then. As I mentioned earlier, I consider it rational to make a choice based on whether or not you will be wrong most of the time.

I am interested in what other choices you find rational and why if you would care to tell about them.

I doubt they would be of interest to you since we are looking for different outcomes.

Linda

Eos of the Eons

29th December 2008, 12:23 PM

No one is born selfish. :jaw-dropp

Yeah, they can be.

Is not bothering with religion the same as being agnostic? Seems I'm agnostic then. I don't bother with saying there isn't gods. I just don't bother believing in any of them. I also don't care to think there are any since there is no logical reason for any to exist, and no way that they could.

Now I'm confused. Someone tell me what I am. :p

fls

29th December 2008, 12:55 PM

Beth

29th December 2008, 02:43 PM

That makes it clearer, since I do not know what you consider rational, then. As I mentioned earlier, I consider it rational to make a choice based on whether or not you will be wrong most of the time. As do I.

I doubt they would be of interest to you since we are looking for different outcomes. I interpret that as a polite fiction meaning you don't want to answer that question. That's okay. You're not obliged to share anything you don't feel comfortable discussing. I am free to draw my own conclusions regarding your reasons for deciding which questions you choose to answer and which ones you do not.

You chose the interval [0,1]. Do you consider the probability of the interval [0, .5) to be equal to that of the interval (.5, 1]?

Was this supposed to make sense? The probability of any interval is wholly dependent upon defining whatever it is that you're talking about. If you are talking about a uniform distribution, then by definition the probability of each interval is the same. Yes, it was supposed to make sense. I was asking how you personally would assess the probabilities of those two intervals. Yes, you have to have a probability distribution in mind. The idea was that it would allow me to get a rough assessment of the sort of distribution you have in your mind for the probabilities we have been discussing. I an still interested in knowing what that is, if you would choose to answer the question this time. Is it similar to the distribution for people being struck by lightning or drinking water? If you can't tell me the prior distribution you assigning for the Bayesian approach to such questions, a simple statement of what you think P [0, .5) is equal to would be of help.

Also, in the same post: I have no problems with this approach as a rational one, I simply don't see it as the ONLY rational approach to the question. Incidently, I feel that that are also rational theistic arguments as well.

I don't see it as the only rational approach, either.
Linda
Based on this conversation, I now think that you see the Bayesian approach as rational and the minimax approach as not rational. I think I could understand your position better if you could tell me what other approaches you find rational, specifically, what approaches that lead to outcomes other than atheistism do you see as rational? You don't have to specify anything, but if you decide not to answer the question this time, I'll assume that you don't really consider anything other than atheism to be a rational position.

Also, to bring this back to what we were talking about earlier, I think this could serve as a way to distinguish our beliefs. And it does fit with how agnostics commonly present their beliefs.

Linda

Yes, :) It at least distinguishes fairly well between yours and mine. I'm not sure how representative we are of the two groups. Thanks again for a pleasant conversation. I am hopeful that I understand your position better now and you mine.

Uncle Otto

29th December 2008, 04:27 PM

from Eos-------

Is not bothering with religion the same as being agnostic?

No. Lots of people who never bother themselves with religion are still theistic. Unless of course you are an agnostic theist.

I don't bother with saying there isn't gods. I just don't bother believing in any of them. I also don't care to think there are any since there is no logical reason for any to exist, and no way that they could.

Now I'm confused. Someone tell me what I am.

You are an atheist.

fls

29th December 2008, 04:33 PM

As do I.

Damn. It finally all made sense and now you've gone and spoilt it.

I interpret that as a polite fiction meaning you don't want to answer that question.

No, I meant it. But I misunderstood what you had said.

That's okay. You're not obliged to share anything you don't feel comfortable discussing.

I don't really care whether or not we discuss other stuff. I just didn't want to get sidetracked from the main discussion by a red herring (since whether or not there are other reasonable approaches doesn't really speak to whether or not your approach is reasonable).

I am free to draw my own conclusions regarding your reasons for deciding which questions you choose to answer and which ones you do not.

What an odd thing to say.

[/QUOTE]Yes, it was supposed to make sense. I was asking how you personally would assess the probabilities of those two intervals. Yes, you have to have a probability distribution in mind. The idea was that it would allow me to get a rough assessment of the sort of distribution you have in your mind for the probabilities we have been discussing. I an still interested in knowing what that is, if you would choose to answer the question this time. Is it similar to the distribution for people being struck by lightning or drinking water? If you can't tell me the prior distribution you assigning for the Bayesian approach to such questions, a simple statement of what you think P [0, .5) is equal to would be of help.[/QUOTE]

The frequency of true ideas in amongst all possible ideas? I suspect the ratio is something like one in a thousand, although I haven't put any real work into estimating it; I could easily be off by several orders of magnitude. But considering that those ideas that represent a much better ratio (maybe even as high as 50/50) would be excluded as the product of science (i.e. a different form of discovery), there's not going to be much to work with.

Also, in the same post:
Based on this conversation, I now think that you see the Bayesian approach as rational and the minimax approach as not rational. I think I could understand your position better if you could tell me what other approaches you find rational, specifically, what approaches that lead to outcomes other than atheistism do you see as rational? You don't have to specify anything, but if you decide not to answer the question this time, I'll assume that you don't really consider anything other than atheism to be a rational position.

I don't see atheism as the only rational outcome. For example, I think that theism can be rational, as well. It isn't belief that defines the position as rational, but rather the approach. I think that rational positions that don't involve belief in gods seem to be described as atheism or agnosticism according to the preference of the individual.

Whether or not an approach is rational depends upon whether it gets you where you want to go - whether that's an effective way to get to the truth or a way to maximize happiness. Overall, I think it's more important to figure out what you are looking for, than to specify a position a priori.

Yes, :) It at least distinguishes fairly well between yours and mine.

Except that now you've gone and denied it, so we're back at square one.

Linda

uruk

29th December 2008, 09:29 PM

Agnostics are the "Luke-Warm Christians" of the Atheist community.

If "Agnosticism" is the only rational position in terms of super-natural belief, then should I be "Agnostic" in terms of astrology or mediums or psychics or good luck charms, etc? Should the rational position of anything that can't be proved or disproved be "agnostic"? If that's the case it is not rational to believe that anything is untrue.

Astrology, mediums, psychics and good luck charms are not in the same catagory as god. You can test the validity of those things.

Coming up with a test for the existance or non-existance of god is not so simple.

It's not fence sitting or bet hedging. As someone mentioned before, being agnostic about god is simply recognising the possibility that the existance, or non-existance of god may be unknowable.

It's similar to asking the question "what was there before the universe existed?" There may be no way for us to frame a valid question.

arthwollipot

29th December 2008, 11:00 PM

As someone mentioned before...Several of us, actually. :)

fls

30th December 2008, 03:25 AM

As someone mentioned before, being agnostic about god is simply recognising the possibility that the existance, or non-existance of god may be unknowable.

It's similar to asking the question "what was there before the universe existed?" There may be no way for us to frame a valid question.

Wouldn't all the claims about gods for which it is possible to frame a valid question allow them to be knowable?

Linda

fls

30th December 2008, 04:36 AM

Based on this conversation, I now think that you see the Bayesian approach as rational and the minimax approach as not rational.

Also, I should make it clear that either/both approaches can be rational and that I am not advocating for any particular approach. My complaint, as I have stated several times now, is that you have grossly misrepresented what minimax can accomplish under the circumstances that you laid out. If you had done the same thing with a Bayesian approach, I would have the same complaint.

Linda

Beth

30th December 2008, 11:58 AM

Also, I should make it clear that either/both approaches can be rational and that I am not advocating for any particular approach. My complaint, as I have stated several times now, is that you have grossly misrepresented what minimax can accomplish under the circumstances that you laid out. If you had done the same thing with a Bayesian approach, I would have the same complaint.

I do not think I have misrepresented what minimax can accomplish under the circumstances. What have I said that you think is a grossly misrepresention? Are you sure you haven't simply misunderstood what I've said about it? Your comments regarding minimax don't indicate much depth of understanding on your part.

As do I.

Damn. It finally all made sense and now you've gone and spoilt it.

I've been saying all along I find different approaches equally rational. You're the one who's been saying that mine isn't rational. I've never said that yours wasn't. I don't see it as a one size fits all, but try to select the approach I think will work best. Clearly you do too. That we disagree on which method would work best in this situation does not mean that one answer is right and the other wrong.

I don't really care whether or not we discuss other stuff. I just didn't want to get sidetracked from the main discussion by a red herring (since whether or not there are other reasonable approaches doesn't really speak to whether or not your approach is reasonable). It would help me to understand what you consider reasonable and rational and what you don't. So far I have one example, the one we've been discussing. Another example would allow me to draw parallels and contrasts between them.

The frequency of true ideas in amongst all possible ideas? I suspect the ratio is something like one in a thousand, although I haven't put any real work into estimating it; I could easily be off by several orders of magnitude. But considering that those ideas that represent a much better ratio (maybe even as high as 50/50) would be excluded as the product of science (i.e. a different form of discovery), there's not going to be much to work with.

The frequency of true ideas in amongst all possible ideas? is not the question I was asking, though it does give me a glimmer of insight into your assessment of the probability.

This was a question I asked earlier in the thread. Let me see if can rephrase your answer to it in such a way that you agree with it, okay. That's a fairly good way to establish if I understand you correctly.

How is it you feel comfortable setting the probability of those particular "indistinguishable ideas" so close to a 0/1 distribution (indicating near certainty) that you find it very silly to use the choice of .5/.5 for such situations?

You feel that the probability of ANY "indistibuishable idea" being true is very very small because you feel the probability of any idea being true is very very small, thus you find the idea that I rate them at 50/50 is ludicrous.

Before I respond to this, I would like to know if this is an accurate statement of your position. Thanks.

Beth

fls

30th December 2008, 01:05 PM

I do not think I have misrepresented what minimax can accomplish under the circumstances. What have I said that you think is a grossly misrepresention? Are you sure you haven't simply misunderstood what I've said about it? Your comments regarding minimax don't indicate much depth of understanding on your part.

I did find it a struggle to figure out what particular aspect you were talking about that could fit under the minimax principle and would give the results that you gave. I figured it would help if I gave guesses that you could say were wrong or right as a way to get to specifics.

Minimax is a way to model the problem, but until some constraints are placed (the specification of a distribution or a measurement or a range or something), it doesn't narrow down the possibilities to something useful. I think it is a misrepresentation to present it as useful in the absence of constraints. If I've said something that looks like a misunderstanding on my part, it would help if you would address that specifically.

I've been saying all along I find different approaches equally rational. You're the one who's been saying that mine isn't rational. I've never said that yours wasn't. I don't see it as a one size fits all, but try to select the approach I think will work best. Clearly you do too. That we disagree on which method would work best in this situation does not mean that one answer is right and the other wrong.

I simply think that there is a difference between an approach that allows you to be right more often than not and one that will be wrong almost all of the time.

It would help me to understand what you consider reasonable and rational and what you don't. So far I have one example, the one we've been discussing. Another example would allow me to draw parallels and contrasts between them.

I think it's rational to take into consideration empirical input, i.e. the results of testing ideas with the scientific method.

The frequency of true ideas in amongst all possible ideas? is not the question I was asking, though it does give me a glimmer of insight into your assessment of the probability.

This was a question I asked earlier in the thread. Let me see if can rephrase your answer to it in such a way that you agree with it, okay. That's a fairly good way to establish if I understand you correctly.

You feel that the probability of ANY "indistibuishable idea" being true is very very small because you feel the probability of any idea being true is very very small, thus you find the idea that I rate them at 50/50 is ludicrous.

Before I respond to this, I would like to know if this is an accurate statement of your position. Thanks.

Beth

That's the gist of it, although "any idea" would need to be qualified. Some groups of ideas are likely to be true while others have varying probabilities.

Linda

uruk

30th December 2008, 10:18 PM

Wouldn't all the claims about gods for which it is possible to frame a valid question allow them to be knowable?

Linda
Well at least know what it's not. Maybe. But how could we tell?

Also how could you tell if the claims actually applied to a god or not? How could you verify to determine if it is a valid claim?

"God created the univers". How do you verify? How do you test? Do human concepts pertain? All concepts of god are human concepts and are relative to what we experiance in this universe? Does any of it relate or pertain to god if it exists? Is god even restricted to conform to what we call logic? Is god required to relate to this existance?

Who knows for sure? We can only know what we can comprehend and that is tied intimately to this univers. God may be incomprehensible to us

fls

31st December 2008, 04:57 AM

Well at least know what it's not. Maybe. But how could we tell?

By whether or not they were lawful.

Also how could you tell if the claims actually applied to a god or not?

By whether or not they are lawful.

How could you verify to determine if it is a valid claim?

You could fairly easily determine if it wasn't.

"God created the univers". How do you verify? How do you test? Do human concepts pertain? All concepts of god are human concepts and are relative to what we experiance in this universe? Does any of it relate or pertain to god if it exists? Is god even restricted to conform to what we call logic? Is god required to relate to this existance?

What we are looking for is something that would relate to the human concept. It would only occur to us to call something God if it related to something that we think of as God. Otherwise, it would be said that we verified gods a long time ago - electromagnetism, gravity, dark energy...

Who knows for sure? We can only know what we can comprehend and that is tied intimately to this univers. God may be incomprehensible to us

Right. We make our discoveries through what comprehension we gain from this universe. Gods relate to this universe.

Linda

Beth

31st December 2008, 08:19 AM

Minimax is a way to model the problem, but until some constraints are placed (the specification of a distribution or a measurement or a range or something), it doesn't narrow down the possibilities to something useful. I think it is a misrepresentation to present it as useful in the absence of constraints. Usefulness is a subjective criteria. I find the minimax approach useful in this situation.

I simply think that there is a difference between an approach that allows you to be right more often than not and one that will be wrong almost all of the time. That's an argument against agnosticism I've heard before. While either theists or athiests might be correct, the agnostic is guaranteed to be wrong!

I think it's rational to take into consideration empirical input, i.e. the results of testing ideas with the scientific method.

That's the gist of it, although "any idea" would need to be qualified. Some groups of ideas are likely to be true while others have varying probabilities.

Linda

Good. I understand your position much better now. We have, at bottom, very different ways of framing the question and the sample space we are examining. I don't make the assumptions you are and vice versa. I want to thank you for taking the time to explain your position in such detail to me.

Ivor the Engineer

31st December 2008, 08:35 AM

<snip>

I don't see atheism as the only rational outcome. For example, I think that theism can be rational, as well. It isn't belief that defines the position as rational, but rather the approach.

<snip>

What approach would that be?

fls

31st December 2008, 09:09 AM

What approach would that be?

Optimizing outcomes, allowing yourself to be informed by systematic observations, logical inference.

Linda

fls

31st December 2008, 09:40 AM

Usefulness is a subjective criteria. I find the minimax approach useful in this situation.

What criteria do you use to decide if something is useful?

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

31st December 2008, 10:22 AM

Optimizing outcomes, allowing yourself to be informed by systematic observations, logical inference.

Linda

While I can possibly see how Deistic God beliefs may remain after adopting the techniques you have described above, I cannot understand how Theistic God beliefs could be maintained.

fls

31st December 2008, 10:35 AM

While I can possibly see how Deistic God beliefs may remain after adopting the techniques you have described above, I cannot understand how Theistic God beliefs could be maintained.

As a convenient fiction?

Linda

Beth

31st December 2008, 10:49 AM

As a convenient fiction?

Linda

You see maintaining theistic beliefs as a convenient fiction to be rational? This is not what I would have expected. Perhaps I don't understand your beliefs after all.

fls

31st December 2008, 12:00 PM

Usefulness is a subjective criteria. I find the minimax approach useful in this situation.

What criteria do you use to decide if something is useful?

Linda

Beth

31st December 2008, 12:05 PM

What criteria do you use to decide if something is useful?

Linda It works as it is supposed to and achieves it's purpose at a cost I am willing to pay.

Do you see maintaining theistic beliefs as a convenient fiction to be rational?

fls

31st December 2008, 12:51 PM

It works as it is supposed to and achieves it's purpose at a cost I am willing to pay.

How is it supposed to work in this situation?

Do you see maintaining theistic beliefs as a convenient fiction to be rational?

Not personally.

Linda

Beth

31st December 2008, 01:58 PM

How is it supposed to work in this situation? As I have described earlier in this thread. I think we're starting to go in circles on this subject.

Not personally.

Linda

Then I'm confused about your stance again. This is the conversation sequence I'm not understanding:

Linda: I don't see atheism as the only rational outcome. For example, I think that theism can be rational, as well. It isn't belief that defines the position as rational, but rather the approach.

Ivor: What approach would that be?

Linda: Optimizing outcomes, allowing yourself to be informed by systematic observations, logical inference.

Ivor: While I can possibly see how Deistic God beliefs may remain after adopting the techniques you have described above, I cannot understand how Theistic God beliefs could be maintained.

Linda: As a convenient fiction?

Beth: Do you see maintaining theistic beliefs as a convenient fiction to be rational?

Linda: Not personally.

Could you please provide an example of what you consider to be a rational approach that leads to theistic beliefs?

fls

31st December 2008, 02:07 PM

As I have described earlier in this thread. I think we're starting to go in circles on this subject.

Then I honestly missed it. Can you restate it for me.

Linda

(note: I will start a new thread for your other question)

fls

1st January 2009, 05:22 AM

Usefulness is a subjective criteria. I find the minimax approach useful in this situation.

Can you show me how your idea performs in a few different circumstances in order to demonstrate its usefulness?

Linda

Beth

1st January 2009, 08:41 AM

Then I honestly missed it. Can you restate it for me.

Linda

I find it useful because it allows me to estimate a probability parameter without any assumptions regarding the distribution of that parameter. You have indicated that you feel perfectly comfortable assuming that the probability of the existance of god for any given definition is very low. I do not.

With the minimax approach, you only need to make assumptiosn about a loss function in regards to an incorrect decision. I am more comfortable making assumptions about the cost of an incorrect decision than I am about the probability of an incorrect decision. Thus, I find it a useful approach.

Can you show me how your idea performs in a few different circumstances in order to demonstrate its usefulness?

Linda

Pascal's famous wager is essentially an application of this approach. He is setting the loss function at 100% for incorrectly assuming god does not exist (you end up spending eternity in hell) and 0% for incorrectly assuming god does exist.

fls

1st January 2009, 10:53 AM

I find it useful because it allows me to estimate a probability parameter without any assumptions regarding the distribution of that parameter. You have indicated that you feel perfectly comfortable assuming that the probability of the existance of god for any given definition is very low.

That's not what I said, but you have shown that it doesn't matter anyway.

I do not.

With the minimax approach, you only need to make assumptiosn about a loss function in regards to an incorrect decision. I am more comfortable making assumptions about the cost of an incorrect decision than I am about the probability of an incorrect decision. Thus, I find it a useful approach.

Ah, that's why the whole 50/50 thing didn't make sense. It was a red herring. It doesn't matter what the probability of the existence of god is.

Pascal's famous wager is essentially an application of this approach. He is setting the loss function at 100% for incorrectly assuming god does not exist (you end up spending eternity in hell) and 0% for incorrectly assuming god does exist.

Ah, my mistake. I was thinking of the search for truth, where the loss reflects the loss of knowledge, and the probability that any particular idea is true or false becomes crucial. If you are talking about the loss of the purported benefits of belief, whether or not an idea is true becomes fairly irrelevant.

Linda

Beth

1st January 2009, 11:10 AM

That's not what I said, but you have shown that it doesn't matter anyway.

Ah, that's why the whole 50/50 thing didn't make sense. It was a red herring. It doesn't matter what the probability of the existence of god is.
I wouldn't consider it a red herring. As I said before, the minimax approach allows me to make an estimate of that probability without making any assumption of the distribution of said probability (the probability is the parameter being estimated). The 50/50 thing is an output not an input to that particular approach.

Ah, my mistake. I was thinking of the search for truth, where the loss reflects the loss of knowledge, and the probability that any particular idea is true or false becomes crucial. If you are talking about the loss of the purported benefits of belief, whether or not an idea is true becomes fairly irrelevant.
Linda

Not irrelevant in all cases, just to Pascal's wager. I do not hold with his loss function, so it's not irrelevant to me.

fls

1st January 2009, 11:36 AM

Not irrelevant in all cases, just to Pascal's wager. I do not hold with his loss function, so it's not irrelevant to me.

What is the loss that relates to your uniform distribution?

Linda

Beth

1st January 2009, 12:20 PM

What is the loss that relates to your uniform distribution?

Linda

Equality. I consider the cost of being wrong in either case to be the same.

uruk

1st January 2009, 12:39 PM

By whether or not they were lawful.And how do you do that with verification? What law is to be used and does it necessarily apply to god?

By whether or not they are lawful..And how do you do that with verification? What law is to be used and does it necessarily apply to god?

You could fairly easily determine if it wasn't. How so?

What we are looking for is something that would relate to the human concept. It would only occur to us to call something God if it related to something that we think of as God. Otherwise, it would be said that we verified gods a long time ago - electromagnetism, gravity, dark energy... But is there any way of verifying that our concept of god applies to what a god actually is? What determins that our concept of god actualy applies to god? Is it simply a semmantical question?

Right. We make our discoveries through what comprehension we gain from this universe. Gods relate to this universe.

Linda And how does gods relate? Any way to verify?

fls

1st January 2009, 01:22 PM

I wouldn't consider it a red herring. As I said before, the minimax approach allows me to make an estimate of that probability without making any assumption of the distribution of said probability (the probability is the parameter being estimated). The 50/50 thing is an output not an input to that particular approach.

Your choice requires the specification of a distribution for the parameter itself. My choice requires the specification of a loss function for the range of parameter values, but does not require an assumption regarding the distribution of the parameter itself. I find the uniform distribution to be adequate for the loss function.

Will the output depend upon the distribution chosen for use with the loss function?

How does the choice of a distribution for use with the loss function relate to the distribution of the parameter?

If they are unrelated, how does one choose a distribution for use with the loss function?

Linda

fls

1st January 2009, 01:33 PM

And how do you do that with verification? What law is to be used and does it necessarily apply to god?

And how do you do that with verification? What law is to be used and does it necessarily apply to god?

Any law will do. We don't usually consider gods lawful, so if something is lawful, we wouldn't consider it a god. For example, once we discovered the laws governing the movement of the heavenly bodies, we called it Gravity instead of God.

How so?

As above - by discovering whether or not it followed laws.

But is there any way of verifying that our concept of god applies to what a god actually is? What determins that our concept of god actualy applies to god? Is it simply a semmantical question?

I don't think there is anything else to it than whether or not something satisfies semantical considerations. There are lots of things that we have discovered that could have been God, but they didn't conform to our semantical requirements (e.g. electromagnetism, dark energy, dark matter).

And how does gods relate? Any way to verify?

It only occurs to us to invoke gods in relation to this universe. It doesn't occur to us to invoke gods because of their actions in some universe we have no knowledge about or interaction with.

Linda

Beth

1st January 2009, 01:42 PM

Will the output depend upon the distribution chosen for use with the loss function? Yes

How does the choice of a distribution for use with the loss function relate to the distribution of the parameter? It doesn't. The loss function specifies the loss associated with each value in the range of the parameter. The distribution of the parameter throughout that range is not a factor in the comptuation.

If they are unrelated, how does one choose a distribution for use with the loss function?

Linda You specify a value for the loss associated with each possible value the parameter can take on. The cost of incorrectly assuming god exists is considered independent of the probability that assuming god exists is correct or incorrect.

fls

1st January 2009, 01:51 PM

It doesn't. The loss function specifies the loss associated with each value in the range of the parameter. The distribution of the parameter throughout that range is not a factor in the comptuation.

You specify a value for the loss associated with each possible value the parameter can take on. The cost of incorrectly assuming god exists is considered independent of the probability that assuming god exists is correct or incorrect.

What does this - "I find the uniform distribution to be adequate for the loss function" - choice mean if distribution is not part of the loss function?

Linda

Beth

1st January 2009, 02:06 PM

What does this - "I find the uniform distribution to be adequate for the loss function" - choice mean if distribution is not part of the loss function?

Linda

It means I assume the loss is equal whether I incorrectly assume that god exists or incorrectly assume god does not exist. The loss function is also a distribution function. You may or may not agree that this distribution is appropriate. As I mentioned before, Pascal had a different loss function that I do. With minimax, the computation of the optimum estimate for the parameter being assessed is completely independent of the probability distribution of that parameter.

wolfgirl

1st January 2009, 02:29 PM

I don't see why I have to claim to be certain there is no god to call myself an atheist. The word doesn't imply I know whether there is a god, only that I believe there is not.

A theist can not know there is a god. Does that make him an agnostic? So why does my lack of knowledge have to make me one? I don't believe in gods, so I'm an atheist. It's really that simple.

Do you believe in god? There are only two answers. If yes, you're a theist. If no, you're an atheist. If you say, "I don't know if there's a god," I'll reply, "I didn't ask you what you know, but what you believe."

fls

1st January 2009, 02:56 PM

It means I assume the loss is equal whether I incorrectly assume that god exists or incorrectly assume god does not exist.

What if you didn't make that assumption? Would the loss be distributed differently?

The loss function is also a distribution function. You may or may not agree that this distribution is appropriate.

Should it matter whether or not I agree? I thought that this idea appealed to you because agreement was unnecessary.

As I mentioned before, Pascal had a different loss function that I do. With minimax, the computation of the optimum estimate for the parameter being assessed is completely independent of the probability distribution of that parameter.

Does it depend upon the distribution of the loss function?

Linda

yy2bggggs

1st January 2009, 02:59 PM

Do you believe in god? There are only two answers.
That's incorrect, actually. It's a false dichotomy.

There are a number of other possibilities besides "I believe there is a god" and "I don't believe there is a god".
If you say, "I don't know if there's a god," I'll reply, "I didn't ask you what you know, but what you believe."And you're working under the false presumption that a person is necessarily committed to a belief. "I don't know if there's a god" may be as accurate as it gets with respect to describing a person's actual belief. For example, this would be my position on the matter of my belief that you own a car.

Beth

1st January 2009, 03:34 PM

What if you didn't make that assumption? Would the loss be distributed differently? Yes. If I assume the loss is distributed differently, the loss is distributed differently.
Should it matter whether or not I agree? I thought that this idea appealed to you because agreement was unnecessary. Correct.

Does it depend upon the distribution of the loss function?

Linda

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Are you asking "Does the probability distribution of the parameter depend upon the loss function?" No, I said that they were independent. That implies that neither depends upon the other.

Toke

1st January 2009, 03:59 PM

I find the difference irelevant.
Sure, there could be a god hiding under a rock somewhere in the galaxy, or hiding behind the big bang.

Until it is located I will think of myself as an atheist, it makes for less confusion.

fls

1st January 2009, 04:20 PM

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. Are you asking "Does the probability distribution of the parameter depend upon the loss function?"

No. I am asking whether the computation of the optimum estimate for the parameter being assessed, using Minimax, depends upon the distribution of the loss function; the function for which you find the uniform distribution adequate.

Linda

Beth

1st January 2009, 04:43 PM

No. I am asking whether the computation of the optimum estimate for the parameter being assessed, using Minimax, depends upon the distribution of the loss function; the function for which you find the uniform distribution adequate.

Linda

Yes, that's why you have to specify a loss function in order to make the computation.

fls

1st January 2009, 04:48 PM

Okay, so the optimum estimate is a consequence of whatever you choose for the distribution for the loss function. If one of your colleagues suggested that a different distribution would provide a better estimate, how would you go about evaluating which choice is best?

Linda

Beth

1st January 2009, 04:52 PM

fls

1st January 2009, 04:57 PM

I would assess how well his/her choice stacked up against reality as I perceive it.

Can you be a bit more specific. For example, if I am evaluating how well a particular test works, I compare it to a gold-standard. What would be a gold-standard in this case?

Linda

fls

2nd January 2009, 12:08 PM

I would assess how well his/her choice stacked up against reality as I perceive it.

I also wonder, would you expect that to satisfy your colleague's concerns?

Linda

Ordover

5th January 2009, 05:33 AM

As an agnostic, I neither believe nor disbelieve in anything that I have not seen convincing evidence for. If 200 years ago someone had told me there was an animal on Earth that had fur, a duck bill and laid eggs and nursed its young, I would have said "I haven't seen the evidence of such" not "I don't believe there could be such a creature."

In America in particular, you're supposed to either believe or not believe in things, a single-valued logic that I abhor. I neither believe nor disbelive in God; I am awaiting evidence that establishes God as fact to my satisfaction, and yes, in the meantime I behave as if there isn't a God but that is not an expression of belief/disbelief, but I am that way on all issues for where I have not been presented with convincing evidence.

The willingness to say "I haven't seen convincing evidence" instead of stating an opinion for all time is, I feel, what is different between agnostics, who are waiting for evidence, and atheists, who have decided that there isn't a God by any description, even though proving that something does not exist is quite difficult and may be impossible.

For comparisson, I am stil avaiting convincing evidence of the existence of gravitons, which ever-more-sensitive instruments keep failing to detect, time travel (in the sense of disappearing in 2100 and immediately appearing in 2000 or 2200), FTL travel, teleportation on a macro level and so on.

Let's take time travel as an example. So far the evidence is against it:

1) If it occured naturally, it would show up as violations of the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass-energy, as particles would appear and disappear in ways that from our point of view would violate those laws - in fact, we would never have formulated them because they would not match observed reality

2) If it occured in the "classic" format, horsetracks, bookies, casinos and the stock market would be unprofitable as those who know the results would have long since bankrupted them; in fact, the concept of such entities would not exist as there would never have been a profit motive to making guesses on the outcome of future events.

That said, I'm well aware that "man will never fly" and that "rockets would have nothing to push against in a vacuum" and that trains won't work because there won't be enough friction on the rails. As a result I don't believe or disbelieve in time travel, I have simply not seen convincing evidence that it is physically possible. I await more evidence on the subject.

fls

5th January 2009, 05:55 AM