NialScorva

Fine by me. That's my interpretation. My opinion *is* backed by an argument though, so there's no equivalence of assertions here. The statement is a conclusion, not an assertion.

Err, what? Either this is a complete non sequitur or I completely missed your point. In either case, this statement in isolation is completely rhetorical and doesn't affect my argument.
Well, no. Logic can only lead one way, but different premises form different logics. Subtle, but *very* important difference.

You're choice, not mine. Am I to presume that you criticise my statements because they aren't a "defensible other road"?

Actually, I was referring to a couple times that I've called myself an agnostic because it lubed the gears of social interaction. It was an admission to the utility of agnosticism in certain contexts, while denying it as a valid conclusion.

My premises for scoffing at agnosticism are pretty simple:

Absolute truth is impossible, there is no absolute certainty. In spite of this, we draw conclusions. There is no rational grounds for causality, though we assume it on a regular basis. There is no rational grounds for the consistency of logic, though we operate under the assumption that there it is. We come to conclusions all the time without rational certainty. Agnosticism implicitely demands the acceptance of absolute truth. It says "We can't know the *real* truth value, so we'll withhold evaluation". This is at complete odds with what we do in our daily lives. Over in the E/C forum, we often hear that a fact is "a hypothesis that is so confirmed that withholding provisional acceptence would be perverse". I would combine this with Occam's razor to create "the non-existence of something is a fact if it has so little evidence that witholding provisional rejection of it's truth would be perverse". The non-existence of god is a fact. Withholding this conclusion may be accurate in a dream world where we eventually find absolute truth, but we don't live in that world.

Bill's essay fails to address my position. The formal logic he uses is absolute. It assumes an absolute truth or falsity of claims. Humans do not work this way. Read any number of treatises on truth such as pragmatism, Bayesian logic, arguments against Wittgenstein's TLP. Conclusions are not made in black and white, they simply cannot be. This position is supported by any number of arguments. Hume and Wittgenstein are my favorites, but anything such as hermanuetics and analytical philosophy address this rather well. Not only that, but conclusions change over time. They are often wrong, and often change over time. The logic in Bill's essay do not account for the simple fact that we do not have to be absolutely assured of correctness in order to draw a conclusion.

So the Bill's premises for an argument against agnosticism do not address my claims. If I had to venture a guess, Bill is far more likely to attack my premise that absolute knowledge is impossible. That would be an interesting discussion, but I haven't seen him commit to it yet.

Gurdur

Oh dear, I can see we're in for a fun time tonight.

Just how ?

Gosh! By your own logic, then, I would be fully justified in denouncing as irrational an Objectivist who proclaimed certain arbitrarily-chosen values as being "objective"?
I've never done that to date, I've simply stated that such ideological positions are incorrrect though not necessarily irrational.

You've ignored my entire point about values underlying certain choices in logical pathways.
Values are by definition - once you get right down to the nitty-gritty - arbitrary. I.e., rationality doesn't enter the picture till afterwards.

So now you're confusing agnostics and pantheists? Or misrepresenting agnostics?
Seems neither fair nor logical nor rational to me.

Do I get to beat up everyone I disagree with (hint, hint, nudge, nudge, say no more ) on those same terms as you've laid out ?

Gurdur

Not at all. Your statement about agnosticism being "just a publicity stunt for atheism" was hardly backed up by any sufficient argument - it was far more simply a rhetorical put-down.

I do conclude you missed my point.

You know, I rather think that was my point? Please re-read my statement.

Not quite; I criticize them on the basis of their unnecessarily emotionally-laden style, their hidden assumptions of 'superiority', and certain lack of recognition of the agnostic stances.

Then you should have said so. By implication, your previous statement covered all agnostics; it was not specified it meant you alone.
And we individually have different weightings when it comes to probability arguments.
My word, this is simply not at all necessarily true.
Agnosticism could simply mean:

• we can't know everything for sure
• While certain ideas of putative deities are inherently illogical, others are not
• On some questions as to logical ideas of putative deities, we simply cannot know, so we might as well proceed as if they don't exist, while acknowledging they jus barely possibly may exist.
  

Seems OK to me, even though I personally would go one step further. Still, each to his own.

Not at all.
For example, SETI and the search for extraterrestial life.

Again, this is where empirical evidence has entered the picture, not a picture where no evidence pertains.
This much depends on circumstances, no?

SETI ?

Then you want to take that up with Bill.
I also note there are a range of differing agnostic positions.

Might well surprise you, but I have and do.

But you want to "scoff" at agnostics for simply being non-committal in theory for acknowledging greyness and refusing to draw hard-and-fast theoretical positions?
So how about putting your arguments without the emotionally-driven judgementalness?

Now that could quite easily be cited by an agnostic in support of his position.

" we do not have to be absolutely assured of correctness in order to draw a conclusion" - and in non-pressing cases where the question remains largely theoretical and without immediate practical consequence, then people are quite justified in being agnostic.

99Percent

Gurdur: As always, I get to the root of our discussion, so lets just focus on your statement:

Gosh! By your own logic...

So there are different "logics"? I daresay you are wrong here. There is only one objective truth, otherwise it is pointless to even continue arguing.

So now you're confusing agnostics and pantheists? Or misrepresenting agnostics?

My mistake, I should have used another example. How about:

Atheist: "Ok, God is me."
Agnostic: "Possible, because I am talking with you".

Gurdur

There are very many different starting points of premises.
Plus, in English, 'logic' can also mean argument, as in "by your own logic" which is pragmatically equivalent to "by your own argument".
Next tediously irrelevant objection?

And that "only one objective truth" is?
BTW, how does it pertain to value judgments about probabilistic logical arguments?
This is a very silly misrepresentation of agnosticism. You already know that most agnostics completely reject all logically incoherent pictures of putative deities - if you've bothered reading the relevant posts here.

My questions to 99% that remain unanswered:

Just what point do these silly misrepresentations and hidden value judgments serve?

Just how did I misuse the term 'putative'?

Am I entitled - or even should I - to denounce an Objectivist as being irrational for proclaiming arbitrarily-chosen morals as being 'objective'?

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

99Percent

Gurdur: LOL You are one damn slippery snake that is hard to grasp, but I WILL GET YOU one of these day

BTW, I never brought up objectivist "values", "morals", "ethics", "logic" or whatever. You seem to be making strawman arguments, although I don't want to get into specifics right now. Peace for now, ok?

Gurdur

ROFLMAO.

No, you're wrong on two counts:

a) I'm not slippery at all - very much the opposite here in this case.

What I've done is to confront the value judgments openly here, and to start cutting away at the supposed logical arguments to expose their implicit non-logical value judgments.

Oh, yes, and the contradictions in your own personal stance I've hinted politely at.

b) I haven't made any strawman arguments at all - in fact you have.

I'll agree on peace if you leave off bashing the agnostics.

99Percent

EHEM. I was bashing off agnostics??? ...

Gurdur

OK, I just checked and yes! yes! damn it, you are right and I was wrong to say you were bashing the agnostics.
However, you did misrepresent them - in one case severely - 3 times that I counted, all in significant ways, thus meriting my responses.
Plus of course, this whole topic carries with it much baggage of SecWeb history and group culture.

The past weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living
---- Karl Marx

Any old how, peace?

Megatron

Hmm... maybe we should bring SD over here?