EVERYONE should be AGNOSTIC

[logic]

ag•nos•tic
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

Alright, regardless of anyones faith/beliefs, NO ONE, not even the pope himself knows,without a shadow of a doubt that there is/isn't a god. By this i mean no one can prove empirically that god exists or dosn't. So, does it not follow that everyone should be agnostic??? Is any other belief logical?

[Abulafia]

If one is looking for logical proof of God, one will never find it, not even after death.

This is a curious statement, since it implies that there can be knowledge of what happens after death before we die. This is the human condition, one of the Big Things that drives us to believe in wacky ideas about supernatural beings, create art, have children, etc.

To clarify: I'm not trying to imply that there can be knowledge of what happens after death before we die. I am putting forward the argument that hypothetically, should one have an experience of God after death, this will not at that time (after death) constitute a logical proof of god.

Logically: If there is a God, we will find out about it after death. That seems simple enough. Because...

If there is an afterlife, it will still be, by definition, illogical, so this is not a contradiction.

I don't quite follow you. Are you saying that an afterlife is illogical? (I just want to make sure I understand)

...
This is also not a contradiction, because nothingness is neither knowing nor not knowing.

I wasn't trying to point out a contradiction: merely stating that even an experience as of heaven or as of Nirvana do not constitute an absolute proof, nor evidence that that is the case barring better explanations for the experience (though I'm not suggesting I've got any better explanations)

Pardon? The only death experience we know of is the death of other people. what happens to "them" after this is pure speculation.

My comments were directed towards one's own (hypothetical) experience after death. I should have made that more clear.

Naturally, there is the potential for remaining within our subjective selves as a "spirit" or what have you, and if this is true, then you are correct.
But there are hundreds upon thousands of possibilities for a possible afterlife, each one equally likely. That our subjectivity remains with us after death is pure speculation.

I guess my point is that even if one had an experience that was truly non-subjective after death, how would one know this was so, and that it wasn't simply a subjective experience.

If, for example, I were to have the experience after death of being sure that I was in heaven, seeing God, and I were convinced that it were an objective experience, couldn't it just be one of Descartes' demons playing with me?

In short: I don't think there's ever any experience one can have which provides evidence that one is having a non-subjective experience.

Even in the case of the cup hitting the floor, you can't prove that it happened once it HAS happened. Otherwise you'd unemploy all the epistemologists.

Careful, you're raising the standards of proof from the physical to the metaphysical, causing science to "disappear into a puff of its own logic."

Oops.. heh.... I agree, I was definately raising the standards of proof into the metaphysical (that's what I get for doing a bunch of Metaphysics last year!) Yet I think Adams' "puff of it's own logic" needn't apply to science in the metaphysical realm: if science still provides the best way of explaining our experiences, and if it really does lead towards truth, then no metaphysical position that one can coherently hold will have an easy time ousting science from a respectable endeavour.

[Abulafia]

For the purposes of this discussion, and the question in this thread, I believe atheism is the active disbelief in The God, and agnosticism is the understanding that we will never be able to know whether or not The God exists. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I for one would totally agree with your definitions (for the purpose of this discussion)

[ST88]

If there is an afterlife, it will still be, by definition, illogical, so this is not a contradiction.

I don't quite follow you. Are you saying that an afterlife is illogical? (I just want to make sure I understand)

Thank you for your clarification. As a hypothetical situation of an ego being preserved after death, I would agree that it would be just as bewildering as you seem to imply. The afterlife would still be illogical because we would not be able to explain it through logic, even if we were walking around in it. This need not assume that we do not assume illogical spirit forms in this afterlife, because we, ourselves would also be illogical. The existence of an afterlife will still be unexplainable in the language of science and rational thought even if we were experiencing it at the same time as we were trying to explain it.

even an experience as of heaven or as of Nirvana do not constitute an absolute proof, nor evidence that that is the case barring better explanations for the experience (though I'm not suggesting I've got any better explanations)

My point here was that if the afterlife is exactly as it is described by Christians, we would know it right away because we would receive message of the Holy Spirit as beings without the truth filters we built up for ourselves in our earthly forms. That is, our spirits would not be bogged down with our earthly rationality or logic, and we would be imbued with Truth.

If there is a different kind of afterlife, and we are not imbued with perfectly formed truths (from other True religions), and we retain our "selves" after death, and the laws of the afterlife are similar to if not the same as our current life, then you would have a point.

[Xanadu Moo]

Without applying the conditions of absolute proof of the existence of a God, there are indeed ways to logically conclude a God as an overwhelmingly likely scenario, even in this life. And I'll just mention a couple of them.

If any supernatural beings were observed, this would be quite a good clue. It would be a good indication that death is not the end, particularly if someone witnessed their own dead relatives. This has never happened to me, but I'm not willing to flatly dismiss all accounts throughout history of seeing God, angels, or ghosts as being illegitimate. This phenomenon is corroborated across many cultures. If dismissed merely as fanaticism or lunacy, I think that's giving up too easily. Even if 99% of the cases result from lunacy or hallucination, that doesn't lessen the chances that God exists. The wackos may even be the control group, to keep everyone guessing.

Secondly and beyond all that, I believe it is indeed possible to prove the existence of God to oneself, if not to convey that proof directly to another person. And that's actually the most reasonable way I can think of a personal God revealing himself -- instead of in an impersonal manner the way scientists are demanding.

The atheist will say they can likewise prove to themselves individually that there is no God. And how exactly is that revealed to them, hmm? By enlightened synapses firing from the ether? (it's also interesting that atheists don't typically invoke the "can't prove a negative" mantra here)

mrmuffin wrote:

Ultimately, we either find the evidences for something convincing or unconvincing. As my fifth grade English teacher explained to one inquisitive student, "Once thunder was understood, Thor wasn't really needed anymore." Perhaps once love is better understood we'll no longer need Cupid.

A couple problems with your teacher's statement. Thunder is still not understood. And even if it someday were, it's part of the natural world. Things like love, beauty and music are qualities that exist apart from the natural world. But even if they weren't...

Mr. Muffin, at what point in world history would you have given up on the possibility of the earth being round? You speak as if we're nearing the end of time, and that our knowledge is already rather advanced. I would submit you would have had this same outlook at any juncture throughout history. It only seems this way because we can't escape the phenomenon of now, and we develop a relativism to the present -- a sort of false confidence that we've arrived enough to make definitive scientific statements. Is there a -centric word for thinking everything necessarily relates to the present?

I just think atheists and agnostics are giving up too easily on these notions. If the truth is not apparent from the outset, they don't want to spend a lifetime trying to explore it. Personally, it makes no sense to me to wait for it to come to you, and to unilaterally dismiss deep-rooted traditions that have been sustained throughout the history of the world. That's how I view the closing of the mind.

[bernee51]

It seems to me I probably wasn't born atheist..

you remember your state of conciousness at birth? On what basis do you hold that you were born with a god belief?

In any case, we've got two options:

If we assume a child is born with a concept of god, then that concept cannot come from experience, and must somehow be innate. If anything, this seems to lead more to a belief in gnosis than a belief in agnosticism.

If we assume a child is born without a concept of god, it can't be atheist. As you say belief (or lack of it) in god would come later.

I believe there is only on option...we are born with no god belief. Any belief we have is acculturated.

You certainly have me rather back to front...I did not say lack of bellef comes later - I hold we are born with it - belief comes later.

But atheism isn't the lack of ANY belief about god it's the specific position that there is no God (or Gods).

again the fundamental error of understanding of atheism.

your statement is incorrect.

Atheism is nothing more or nothing less than the lack of belief in god(s).

Some atheists may, as you assert, hold a specific position that there is no god.

[bernee51]

There is however also Brahman, the god who initiates the cycles of creation/destruction of the universe. Hinduism is not atheistic.

I don't believe that is correct.

Brahman (in the Upanisads) is defiend as Nothing, Emptiness, the Void. It is from Brahman that the universe sprung - Brahman was the source - not the creator.

According to my sources Brahman is described as "the cosmic energy...that puts life into all things...It is not a god..." (my italics). This was drawn from Ancient Indian Tradition by Vinod Verma, New Delhi 2001, page 4. If you wish I can provide some other references. She goes on to say "Western mind(s) often become confused with the numerous gods and muptiple philosophies of Hindu tradition. There are many gods, yet there is no god..."

I would be interested to know your references for stating that Hinduism is NOT atheistic.

[bernee51]

If any supernatural beings were observed, this would be quite a good clue. ... but I'm not willing to flatly dismiss all accounts throughout history of seeing God, angels, or ghosts as being illegitimate.

extraordinary claims require extraodinary proof - there is no proof of the supernatural. What you are speaking of is anecdote and hearsay.

I believe it is indeed possible to prove the existence of God to oneself,

which means, in short, you believe in god.

And that's actually the most reasonable way I can think of a personal God revealing himself...

but christians claim that god is for everyone, if one doesn't believe one is doomed to hellfire. A 'personal' god means that god exists for you personally, it is subjective, not objective - it does not apply to anyone else. It means that this god does not exist in anyone else's objective reality.

The atheist will say they can likewise prove to themselves individually that there is no God.

No, an atheist merely does not believe in god - no proof is required.

And how exactly is that revealed to them, hmm? By enlightened synapses firing from the ether? (it's also interesting that atheists don't typically invoke the "can't prove a negative" mantra here)

OK I'll say it - you can't prove a negative...the onus of proof is on those making the claim.

Atheism is not 'revealed' - it is merely non belief in a deity.
(perhaps that should be my mantra - I repeat it often enough on this forum)

If the truth is not apparent from the outset, they {atheists} don't want to spend a lifetime trying to explore it.

don't you think it is rather arrogant to believe that you can speak for atheists - especially when there appears to be a great misunderstanding as to what exactly atheism is.

Personally, exploration for the truth has done nothing but firm up in my mind (and soul) the personal validity of my position of non-belief.

Personally, it makes no sense to me to wait for it to come to you,...

so why do you follow a culturally defined religion that has 'come to you'? Why are you accepting the word of others and not endevouring to seek your own way?

...and to unilaterally dismiss deep-rooted traditions that have been sustained throughout the history of the world. That's how I view the closing of the mind.

those 'traditions' have changed and evolved over the 200,000+ years homo sapiens has been around. And they will continue to do so. While the current popularity for monotheism is relatively young, it will do the same way as its predecessors.

That is the view of an open mind.

[Abulafia]

It seems to me I probably wasn't born atheist..

you remember your state of conciousness at birth? On what basis do you hold that you were born with a god belief?

Were I to claim that I remember my state of consciousness at birth, I wouldn't insert the word "probably". Nor do I claim that I probably was born with a god belief. I agree with you that most likely we are born without a God belief. See below.

again the fundamental error of understanding of atheism.

your statement is incorrect.

Atheism is nothing more or nothing less than the lack of belief in god(s).

Some atheists may, as you assert, hold a specific position that there is no god.

I'll refrain from responding to most of your comments, as I believe the rest of our miscommunication is founded on this one:

What's your source for Atheism meaning lack of belief?

My sources for believing Atheism means disbelief (which is different than lack of belief)

Websters's Collegiate Dictionary:

Atheism
1. UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS (Let's ignore this one as silly)
2a. a disbelief in the existence of deity
b. the doctrine that there is no deity

Atheist
One who denies the existence of god

The American Heritage Dictionary
Atheism
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods

I'm used to disbelief being interpreted as active. That is: not the witholding of belief, but active denial of the truth of a belief.

I'm used to considering Agnostic to refer to someone who doesn't believe in god, but doesn't fully disbelieve either.... supported by the dictionary.com entry given in the first post of this thread:

Dictionary.com
Agnostic
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

I'm not saying that I've never heard anyone use Atheist to mean what you use it to mean .... just saying that my interpretation is fairly reasonable and not necessarily a "fundamental error of understanding atheism".

I've got plenty of friends who describe themselves as atheist, and plenty of friends who describe themselves as agnostic (not to mention the Wicca,Buddhists,Jews,Sikhs, Christians, etc.). Most of those that describe themselves as atheists mean that they believe that there is no God. Most of those that describe themselves as agnostics mean they are unsure or have no opinion on the matter.

I humbly submit that you may want to consider whether "Atheist" is the right label for you. From your posts, you sound more Agnostic to me.

[Abulafia]

I don't believe that is correct.

Brahman (in the Upanisads) is defiend as Nothing, Emptiness, the Void. It is from Brahman that the universe sprung - Brahman was the source - not the creator.

According to my sources Brahman is described as "the cosmic energy...that puts life into all things...It is not a god..." (my italics). This was drawn from Ancient Indian Tradition by Vinod Verma, New Delhi 2001, page 4. If you wish I can provide some other references. She goes on to say "Western mind(s) often become confused with the numerous gods and muptiple philosophies of Hindu tradition. There are many gods, yet there is no god..."

I can accept that this is one valid strain of interpretation within Hinduism, though not one that I've encountered. (I don't say I DO accept it, I'd have to look into it further)

I would be interested to know your references for stating that Hinduism is NOT atheistic.

My sources are:

- The 5 months I spent travelling in India studying Buddhism, Yoga, and Hinduism
(For a more details source: Swami Dharmananda at the Sri Ved Niketan Ashram instructed me for one month on Yoga, which included study of the Bhagavad Gita and basic Hindu beliefs)

- A reading of Pannikar's translation and commentary of the Vedas entitled "The Vedic Experience". (My understanding is that this volume is well respected within mainstream Hinduism in India, not a radical translation and interpretation)

- Phil 378, a course on the Philosophical wisdom of early india taught by a well respected Indian professor, who was visiting UBC for one year from his university in India.

It sounds like you have an interest in Hinduism. If you're into discussing it in more depth, I'd love to (though this may not be the ideal thread for it).

[mrmufin]

A couple problems with your teacher's statement. Thunder is still not understood. And even if it someday were, it's part of the natural world.

Uh, actually thunder is understood pretty well: Differences in atmospheric electrical potentials are dissipated via lightening sparks which heat the air. The intense heat causes the air to expand rapidly, producing the shock waves we call thunder. In fact, I've never seen any useful, scientific explanation of thunder which involves Thor, or any of the other gods.

Things like love, beauty and music are qualities that exist apart from the natural world. But even if they weren't...

While I'll cheerfully admit that love and beauty are abstract and highly subjective concepts, I wholeheartedly disagree that their existence is at all "apart from the natural world." My disagreement will grow even more passionate with the topic of music, which can be (rather tersely) defined as, "audible tones which respect coherently metered time." Though this is not an appropriate topic for debating what constitutes music, my 25+ years of music theory, composition, performance and very attentive listening only shores up my confidence that music most definitely exists within the natural world.

Mr. Muffin, at what point in world history would you have given up on the possibility of the earth being round?

Answering that question would involve more speculation than I care to indulge in today. Thus, my best answer is, "I don't know."

You speak as if we're nearing the end of time, and that our knowledge is already rather advanced.

I'm not sure what I've written that leads you to conclude that I believe "we're nearing the end of time" (whatever that means in practical terms). I simply suggest that our understanding of the natural world is getting much better. Twenty-first century interferometers are far more accurate than their nineteenth century counterparts. The Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes are far more useful and revealing than the ancient Greek telescopes.

I would submit you would have had this same outlook at any juncture throughout history. It only seems this way because we can't escape the phenomenon of now, and we develop a relativism to the present -- a sort of false confidence that we've arrived enough to make definitive scientific statements. Is there a -centric word for thinking everything necessarily relates to the present?

I agree that at every juncture throughout history the society of that particular has a confidence that their understanding of the world is more accurate than their ancestors'. This is also consistent with my belief that many generations from now, the society of that time will most likely have a much better understanding of the natural world. This PoV is also consistent with my fifth grade English teacher's statements about Thor and thunder.

I just think atheists and agnostics are giving up too easily on these notions. If the truth is not apparent from the outset, they don't want to spend a lifetime trying to explore it.

The fact that I'm participating in these forums is, IMO, a statement of my willingness to explore alternative possibilities. However, that willingness to explore in no way equates to me blindly accepting any or all of the assertions put forth by theists. As to your broad-brush assertions about atheists and agnostics "giving up too easily," I'll simply say (kindly, but sternly): I do not appreciate the gross generalization. You have absolutely no idea about the depth, motivations, and introspection which underlies my interest in these topics.

Personally, it makes no sense to me to wait for it to come to you, and to unilaterally dismiss deep-rooted traditions that have been sustained throughout the history of the world. That's how I view the closing of the mind.

Your opinions are appreciated and have been noted.

Regards,
mrmufin