SeaKayaker

The Impossibility of Neutrality

“Let the evidence speak for itself.” This seems to be the rallying cry of modern science. Scientists evaluate their theories neutrally, considering the evidence of either side, coming at last to a reasoned conclusion. Naturally, people are eager to apply this to the evaluation of worldviews; one must neutrally evaluate each worldview and then come to a reasoned conclusion as to the truth. For this reason, agnosticism has gained popularity as a neutral system, for it claims neutrality on one of the most significant issues, that of the existence of God. However, is agnosticism, or any worldview, for that matter, truly neutral? The dichotomy between Christianity and agnosticism make an impartial evaluation of the two worldviews impossible. Because of the antithetical nature of Christian and agnostic or atheistic thought, the person who claims neutrality has actually already committed himself to a position. Because the Christian and the agnostic disagree over how people should attain knowledge, over how people should answer questions of fact, their criteria for evaluating a worldview differ. The very concept of knowledge exposes this dichotomy. The concept of knowing something presupposes a worldview because it presupposes a system of morality, it presupposes the meaning of knowledge, and it presupposes methods of attaining knowledge. Because the Christian and the agnostic disagree over the morality behind knowledge, the meaning of knowledge, and the methods of discovering knowledge, neither is a neutral position.

The very idea of knowledge presupposes a system of morality. When a person, faced with what he considers convincing evidence for a proposition, believes that proposition, he is doing so because of his moral values. There is no physical force compelling him to believe it, yet there is an obligation that brings him to accept the proposition. This is a moral obligation, since he realizes that it is “right” to believe the proposition and “wrong” to reject it. Thus, knowledge itself is an outworking of a person’s morality. Therefore, every worldview that claims to attain any sort of knowledge (saying that knowledge is inaccessible is itself a claim to knowledge, albeit a self-defeating one) must also address the issue of morality. This forces the agnostic to, as much as he may dislike it, have a system of morality. However, on the issue of morality, one can clearly not be neutral; the Christian bases his morality firmly in God, but the atheist bases his morality in some human standard. The agnostic must either say that God exists and use Him as the foundation for morals or use some humanely standard (what causes pain is bad, the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people, etc.). If God exists, not admitting that He is the source for morality is a clear rejection of His authority an affront to His dignity, deserving of punishment. On the other hand, if God does not exist, any attempt to use Him as the foundation for morals is absurd. Therefore, in order to know anything, the agnostic must decide whether he will affirm or deny that God exists. For the agnostic claiming neutrality, claiming to be without assumptions, assuming that God exists is intolerable, therefore agnostics use human standards as the foundation for their morality, thus proving that they are not neutral.

Just as the Christian and agnostic disagree with the moral issues behind knowledge, they disagree over what knowledge really is. To the Christian, knowledge is a thinking of God’s thoughts after him. Therefore, all knowledge is knowledge of God (that is not all it is, but it is a valid perspective of all knowledge). To the agnostic, however, knowledge is learning about the world. Separating the world from God, the agnostic seeks to learn about the world without learning about God. If God exists, such an attitude is an affront to Him, the Creator, who reveals himself to all men through His creation. If, however, God does not exist, this only makes sense any attempt to tie knowledge to a being that does not exist is foolishness. Therefore, the agnostic must again choose; is everything he knows knowledge of God, or is it separate from God.

Finally, the Christian and the agnostic disagree over the methods of attaining knowledge. According to the Christian, God is the ultimate source of knowledge and He has revealed Himself to man through the His Word. The Christian can find his surest knowledge in God’s direct revelation, but since he believes that God created the universe and reveals Himself through it, the Christian can also seek knowledge in the universe. He knows that his senses and methods are not infallible, but he trusts that they are reliable because of his faith in God. For the agnostic, on the other hand, his senses are generally ultimate. He believes those things that his senses tell him and thus uses them to discern truth. However, in regarding his perceptions as ultimate, he denies God. If God exists, His Word is ultimate, not perception. Thus, the agnostic must again choose a side, he must either say that God exists and that He is the source of all knowledge or that God does not exist and perception (or some other standard) is the ultimate source for all knowledge.

Although the agnostic often claims that he is neutral, in making any claims to knowledge he must choose to either affirm or deny the existence of the Christian God. In order to know anything, he must affirm either a Christian or an antitheistic view of morality. In describing the meaning of knowledge, he again must affirm either a Christian or an antitheistic view of knowledge. In coming to know anything, he must either affirm either a Christian or an antitheistic view of the source of knowledge. In each of these three instances, the agnostic’s claim to neutrality fails. Yet, agnostics often refuse to acknowledge this, demonstrating that men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:19, 21-22).

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: SeaKayaker ]</p>

bgponder

My Friend Sea'ker,

Hi!! Whassup? Sorry I've been so long in replying to the last post in the "EATTA" thread. I must say, man you've got some hot religion going since we last posted. I hope this doesn't get relegated to RRP, but you know, I think it might? I get the same way sometimes. I fear, however, that the wolves are about to descend. I would like to cite a few things:

I am sorry to blindside you with this, but this is one of the issues in the post that you missed in EATTA because of my lagtime. You have said before, (and I am paraphrasing, but close)..."When I say that the Bible is my ultimate authority...it is authoritative on those issues it addresses." And my reply was, ergo you do not consider it authoritative on those issues it does not address. If that is so, then how can you say that agnostics who use similar(to scientific) epistemological models to come to their conclusions are in error? Further, there are many instances of the knowledge acquired by scientific inquiry being contradictory to biblical passages regarding similar or selfsame knowledge. How are you to choose between the primacy of scripture and the conceded primacy of science in such matters? If God is chosen, then science is invalidated and much in paragraph 4 of your post here must be regarded very skeptically.

Ummm...so you are a Christian, and...you are telling me that you cannot make an impartial evaluation of the agnostic worldview. So am I to take it that you are just preaching at me, if I an agnostic, and I am just wrong, blahblahblahblahblah...not trying to be mean, but that's kind of open. Sorry.

"We call first truths those we discover after all the others."--Albert Camus

Peace and cornbread, Barry G.

edited fer grammer and the UBB
[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: bgponder ]

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: bgponder ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

According to whom? You?

Actually, to be more accurate, scientists apply a rigorous standard of experimentation, falsification and continued analysis in the attempt to prove (or disprove) a theory, coming at last to a reasoned conclusion that is by no means immutable.

Here we go.

Why must "one" do this? What has the evaluation of "worldviews" (i.e., personal belief systems) to do with science, other than in the manner "one" decides to personally (and therefore rationally or irrationally) apply their own personal bias to said conclusion of "the truth?"

The "worldview" is largely and hopefully irrelevant to the scientific method, so this straw man had better find a brain soon or be discarded for the contrivance that it appears to be. But, as a freethinker, I will, as always, keep an open mind and see where you go with this.

I'll let the hyperbole slide on this one. Let's just say that agnostics willfully acknowledge their lack of knowledge and therefore remain "neutral." This neutrality, however, is dependent upon evidence of god and nothing else; an all too salient point that is so easily lost in such hyperbole.

Since you just defined agnosticism as being "neutral," the answer would be, "yes," but, again, let's see how much straw you're willing to stuff...

Only by a christian and an agnostic sitting together in a room. The atheist is perfectly impartial to make any evaluations regarding these two "worldviews;" one in which,"Goddidit," and one in which "I'm not yet convinced Goddidit" can easily be evaluated by the atheist, since only the atheist is impartial to this dichotomy.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, there little pony. Where does atheism come into this? You were discussing the impossible impartiality of the dichotomy between christian and agnostic "worldviews." This has nothing to do with the atheist. An atheist has no "worldview" per se.

It is, by definition and practice, the absence of a "worldview" based on theism and therefore has nothing to do with either the christian or the agnostic.

No, they have not. The only claim being made is that gods exist. The agnostic makes no claim. The agnostic merely states to the claimant (the christian), "I do not see sufficient evidence to support your claim, but I will not then dismiss your claim accordingly."

In that regard, the agnostic as opposed to the christian is in a far superior position to the christian, who merely accepts the claim as it is stated.

They do? How does a christian think people should attain knowledge? If you say, "Through god," then there isn't "disagreement, there is nonsense; the equivalent of saying, "Through #%$DAERTAGAZFG," since, to the agnostic, there currently exists no compelling evidence of, "#%$DAERTAGAZFG;" merely a belief.

Not at all. The agnostic recognizes fact; the christian does not. This isn't mere "disagreement," this is a demonstrable, inherent state of affairs that the agnostic can recognize and the christian either cannot or will not. Regardless, one recognizes fact the other does not and, therefore, there is no disagreement "between" the agnostic and the christian; there is only the delusion of the christian and the question as to what has caused the christian to be deluded.

How so?

Non-sequitur on many levels.

<ol type="1">[*] The "concept of knowing something" is a meaningless phrase in this context. Either you know something, or you do not know something. Did you mean to say, "The ability to know something?"[*] It is not possible to "presuppose" something. One can suppose something, certainly, but presupposing something implies a meta ability from pre-consciousness that is not in evidence.[*] Morality is a subset of Knowledge. It is possible to "know something" and not have that "something" relate to Morality.[/list=a]

Casually throwing around the word "presupposing" without offering cogent analysis as to how such presupposition can exist (or "pre-exist") renders the term meaningless. Merely proclaiming that it does is nothing more than a declaration; a pointless game of semantics.

How, exactly, does one "presuppose" something? Does it occur prior to consciousness? If so, how could you possible establish such a fact other than mere assertion?

Again, such infinite regress is fun semantics masturbation, but where is the practical evidence? Where does this ability you claim exists, exist? Assertion doesn't cut it.

When you assert that someone "presupposes" something, what exactly do you mean and how exactly do they do such a thing?

Again, you're conflating "knowledge" and "morality." Morality is a subset of Knowledge. They are not equivalent or dependent. I can "know" that the grass is in my yard. I don't have to "presuppose" the grass is in my yard since the knowledge of grass was a learned, experiential event.

Nor do I require any moral dependency to know that I have experienced grass in order to know that there is grass in my yard.

It seems abundantly clear that you are not talking about "presupposing" (an ultimately nonsensical term) as you are attempting to build a pointlessly circuitous semantics straw man for "what caused knowledge."

No one knows what "caused" knowledge.

The agnostic recognizes this fact; the christian does not. Again, this isn't mere "disagreement;" this is one individual recognizing the truth and another not recognizing the truth.

If you don't like the word "recognizing," feel free to insert "understands" or "accepts." Either, I think, will suffice.

False. Both the "meaning" of knowledge and the "methods of discovering knowledge" are readily apparent and exist regardless of one's personal "worldview." Again, I think you're trying to simply state, "The christian 'worldview' accounts for" the "meaning of knowledge and the methods of discovering knowledge."

That is certainly true, but that is the only thing that is ultimately true about the christian "worldview." It accounts for the existence of knowledge.

But that's not the question is it? The question is, does this particular account of how we all have the ability of "knowledge" demonstrate the "truth" about how we have the ability of knowledge?

In other words, is the christian "worldview" true? The answer has been debated ad nauseum here and the conclusion is, "no, it is not," hence agnostics (and atheists).

There's that unsubstantiated, nonsense word again. Let's see how you back it up (if you do):

False. Morality has nothing to do with a person evaluating "convincing" evidence.

There exists convincing evidence for the theory of evolution. This does not mean that the theory of evolution is morally "good."

<ol type="A">[*] No there isn't, as the very existence of the christian "worldview" demonstrates.[*] You've just disproved theism and christian presuppositionalism.[/list=a]

According to christian theology, God is a physical force that created existence and compels belief; it is only the individual who negates that force through free will (i.e., the ability to choose to disobey or disavow the physical presence of God in existence).

False. You are misapplying morality to the terms "right" and "wrong" in this context. It is not "morally right" or "morally wrong" to accept or reject evidence in support of a proposition.

A proposition is considered "right" in the colloquial sense, because the evidence supports the claim, not because the evidence has supported a moral declaration.

If you're going to continue to argue this, I would suggest you start using concrete examples of what you're talking about.

For example, what proposition has a moral imperative?

Non-sequitur.

Which, so far in this thread, is only the christian worldview...

Good thing no one has.

Non-sequitur. The "issue of morality" has no bearing on a discussion of what may or may not have caused our ability to know something.

"It" does no such forcing. Agnostics, like everyone, have a learned and accepted system of morality.

I'm afraid the only one doing any forcing is you.

As a side question, why not? You're making an awful lot of unsubstantiated assertions here.

That's nice poetry, but meaningless. One cannot base one's morality "in" something. One can base one's morality "on" something, but not "in" it.

If you meant to say, "the christian bases his morality firmly on god," however, then we have another problem. What does this mean? That your morality follows god's (i.e., the creature depicted in the bible) morality? That creature is above morality, so it isn't possible for the christian to base their morality on god's morality.

Do you mean that the christian bases their morality on the teachings of Jesus as written in the New Testament? On god in the Old Testament? On both?

What, exactly, do christians base their morality upon? Please take note of the word "exactly" and detail what christians base their morality upon.

Because that is the only "standard" from which all morality comes from. Keep in mind that humans wrote the bible.

The phrase "foundation of morals" has no qualitative meaning. Please clarify.

If you don't use specifics, then we will have to assume you mean that "what god does, so should man," which would mean, as you know, committing genocide is perfectly, morally correct.

Are you arguing for a "do as I say and not as I do" approach to morality as a "foundation?"

"Bad" as in "should not be done because it hurts," (i.e., "empathy") or "bad" as in "it is socially unacceptable that you do such a thing?"

This not the humane (or human) standard of morality.

Whoa! Where did this nonsense come from? That is also, obviously, not the human standard. Nor is it a humane standard, since fictional creatures do not exist and, therefore, cannot possibly dole out "punishment."

If we were to accept this definition of morality, then we should immediately release all prisoners and disband the entire judicial system.

Since there is no evidence that fictional creatures factually exist, I finally agree with you. It is, indeed, absurd.

Non-sequitur. The agnostic has full knowledge of mankind's existence without having to affirm or deny anything at all about fictional creatures that have not been proven to exist.

It would be the claimant's burden to prove otherwise, which you have never done. Nothing you have presented here proves such a fictional creature exists or is even necessary to exist in order for agnostics to be able to either seek knowledge, retain knowledge or attain knowledge.

Your assertions do not impress.

Only to a cult member inculcated in the false belief that fictional creatures factually exist and inexplicably mandate morality.

Non-sequitur. You have not established a state of existence contrary to the agnostic "worldview" to make such a claim. You must first prove that such a fictional creature factually exists and is somehow the physical force compelling such morality to exist for the agnostic to disavow, thereby switching their neutrality to a human standard. Without proof of a "super" human standard, there is no other state on this issue but neutrality for the agnostic.

The agnostic seeks proof. You have offered none.

Again, no, they do not. The christian simply denies the truth in favor of irrational self-delusion; that an unproved, unsubstantiated fictional creature factually exists.

The truth, however, is "out there."

Nonsense, and I mean that literally. You might as well have stated, "To the christian, knowledge is a thinking of #$WAGFAdfl's thoughts after it."

Prove that "#$WAGFAdfl" exists and only then would you have an argument.

More nonsense. What you meant to proclaim is, "Therefore, all knowledge is implanted by god," which is further nonsense according to the christian's own cult indoctrination of free will.

And the stars and the quantum foam and the birds and the bees and what dreams are and where they come from and even how people like you can be so deluded about fictional creatures factually existing without having a clue why they so vehemently pretend it's true ad seemingly infinitum.

The christian's is a closed system based on indoctrination; the agnostic's is wide open and waiting for more.

...a fictional creature...

...a fictional creature. So, separating the world from a fictional creature the agnostic seeks to learn about the world without learning about a fictional creature. Sounds just find to me.

What's your problem? That they don't pretend fictional creatures exist the way christians do?

Well, if this fictional creature factually exists and if this is the same one depicted in the christian "worldview," then "it" will just forgive us and move on with its business.

Either way, what's it to you?

If I take you're meaning from that correctly, then, once again, I agree. Christians are foolish for believing such nonsense.

Since you haven't established that such a fictional creature factually exists, you've just stated, "Therefore, the agnostic must again choose; is everything he knows knowledge of a fictional creature, or is it separate from a fictional creature?"

In which case, I doubt many agnostics here will loose much sleep over the matter.

Again, it's not so much "disagreement" as it is the pathetic self-delusion of the christian cult member too indoctrinated to be able to see what is or is not a fact of existence.

Let's explore that, shall we? I'll assume you're such a christian. Please seek out the quantum certainty of a particular photon in the Andromeda galaxy through god.

I'll wait.

Then he is no different than the agnostic in this regard.

Then he is an idiot and worthless to society. God can have him.

Then he is a valuable and helpful member of society and worthy of the highest praise, since his intelligence far outweighs that of the christian cult member in that it is open and willing to experience anything unknown with an open mind, unlike the christian cult member, who must rely on faith in a fictional creature.

No, he doesn't. That's why he's labeled an "agnostic."

If perception is not ultimate, then how does the christian rely on faith?

Non-sequitur. You have a terrible habit of not supporting your conclusions.

Again, you've just stated, "Although the agnostic often claims that he is neutral, in making claims of knowledge he must choose to either affirm or deny the existence of a fictional creature."

Why in the hell must anyone "affirm or deny" fictional creatures?

Establish that the christian god is not a fictional creature or you have no argument and never will have an argument.

You now, just because you keep declaring non-sequiturs does not make them any less non-sequiturs.

This is little more than pointless masturbation on your part, so I hope you're enjoying it.

No, he mustn't. Affirming or denying fictional creatures has nothing to do with "describing the meaning of knowledge" as volumes of philosophical treatise demonstrate.

You have no argument; only vehement declaration, which, of course, holds absolutely no weight.

Non-sequitur for the twentieth goddamned time. Why do you feel that repeating false conclusions will make them valid?

Until you prove the factual existence of this fictional creature you keep demanding exists, nothing you have typed will have any importance at all.

Because they are clearly too intelligent to do so.

You've definitely demonstrated that last part here. Congratulations.

According to the author of Romans, you're a fool.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

HRG

Just a few remarks.

Interesting that you call it a "dichotomy". Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc. will be surprised to hear that they are irrelevant.
"Because of the (recent) antithetical efforts of the Patriots and the Rams the person who claims neutrality has actually already committed himself to a position".

To which one, I'd like to ask ?
This is quite ridiculous. There is convincing evidence that there is a monitor in front of me, and I believe it, because the visual centers in my brain makes me believing it. Morality does not enter the fray at all.
Of course there is: the photons emitted by the monitor, as interpreted by the visual brain centers.
Not at all. The correct dichotomy is not "right"/"wrong", but "reasonable"/"silly".

I consider your point to be refuted.
Not at all. Just punishment requires guilt. If you honestly come to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence for the existence of a Supreme Being, you are free of blame.
This claim depends on your previous claim about a connection between knowledge and morality, which has been refuted.

The agnostic does not "choose". He is not convinced by the existing evidence that there exists a god - which is a cognitive, not an intentional activity.
Not so. Since God is imagined to be a volitional being, he can lie. Thus his word cannot be the ultimate source of truth.

&lt;snip. It's getting late&gt;

Note added:
To make my point clear, I claim that SeeKayaker's statement is based on an equivocation applied to the right-wrong dichotomy. "You are wrong in believing X" is a different usage of "wrong" than "You did wrong in doing X".

In the context of morality, it implies that one can choose between alternatives , can choose wrong and is to be blamed for a wrong choice. None of this applies to knowledge; I can at most choose to look or not to look for knowledge, but I cannot choose to know/believe or not to know/believe. I cannot choose not to know that there is a monitor in front of me or that the fundamental theorem of algebra is true (because I've seen the proof) - and I cannot choose to know that SK's God exists, because there is no objective and credible evidence in his favor.

Regards,
HRG.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: HRG ]</p>

emotional

You have presupposed that everything must be evaluated according to the Word of God. Which, for the sake of the argument, is fine and I have no misgivings, but first it must be established that the writings in question (the Christian Bible to you) are indeed the Word of God before they can become the standard of evaluating everything. If you say that the Bible is the Word of God because it says so, then you have to explain why you reject the Qur'an as the Word of God, even though the Qur'an makes such a claim very many times in it.


End of story, the only sane presupposition is <a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/presuppositional.html" target="_blank">Naturalistic Presuppositionalism</a> - evaluating everything according to natural fact.

Ender

Seakayer
I posted my reply before I read the others- so if I am merely repeating what has already been said, bear with me. This looks like a juicy meaty T-Bone offered up for brain consumption!

Actually the rallying cry of modern science is thus: tell us what is true of nature and how to explain it.

Yes, that is what people do- but the real reason why scientists have the best method to ascertain “utility” from whatever knowledge they gain from the world because they function on a basic metaphysical principle: the uniform theory of nature. the future shall resemble the past- a human means to reasoning and belief based on habit. People naturally base their conclusions on what customarily happens, that what took place before will always continue to do so. This is the formulation of science, and the foundation of causality (that every event has an explainable cause) and are explainable due to human formulation- the laws of nature.

Huxley’s little reinterpretation of rationalism, agnosticism isn’t necessarily a consequence of a scientific world-view. Since in hindsight you are talking about a certain type of God, one may believe in another strain of God and remain agnostic about your own. Equating scientists with agnostics is a strawman and your first in this thread. First you must succeed in arguing why the scientist is necessarily the agnostic and vice versa before you can continue on blithely.

Is this where you lay a potential brain-fart with the claim that there is no such animal- no such thing as a ‘neutral’ world-view? Perhaps you’re a pubescent presuppositionalist.

*logical fallacy alarm* You're penalized for committing a bifurcation fallacy, that you assume these two competing worldviews are completely antithetical to one another and that there is no third position independent of either one. Did you think this out before you wrote this down or are you having fun at our expense? I disagree with your invented dichotomy. a little history helps- one that inexorably points to the fact that science itself is an outgrowth of the Christian faith, which is based on a 2300 year old ancient greek ‘flame,’ that “truth” is divine. Plato's equation of the Good with divine truth to the God of Christian theologians (Augustine) to Francis Bacon (scientific method) to enlightenment…

Was that a little slip? The terms atheist and agnostics are not synonymous. Perhaps this is a sign of an addiction to equivocation and linguistic gymnastics?

Actually the Christian stops short at custom and habit, and never realizes the psychological inclinations of his own human nature plays a large part in formulating knowledge while the agnostic, who is armed with a far more reticent form of judgment, (withhold his assent until sufficient evidence is quite evident) is cognizant of how he forms beliefs, and precisely how the correct decisions may be arrived at judiciously, moreso than the slip-shod & sloppy thinking of a typical Christian. The agnostic by virtue of his adoption of a skeptical method usually arrives at far better conclusions about what constitutes as knowledge- that of sensory experience and reasonably conclude that there can never be absolute knowledge. That inference is what frightens those of a weak mentality or fortitude the most, and drives them to psychological eye-candy (security blanket, eh): the lies of religious doctrines.

If you’re going to play as an epistemologist here, first you have to explain how knowledge is arrived at before you dick around with terms like “dichotomies” or “worldviews.” By keeping your philosophical methodology clean of metaphysical monsters, you reach a finely-tuned philosophical position. Sloppy writing. That will go well with uncritical thinking folks such as the gullible masses, but not here chico.

incorrect. The ‘concept of knowing’ only presupposes that a knower is, that he exists. All inferences are questionable in themselves.

Your other assertions fall apart because you have not adequately demonstrated how the ‘concept of knowing’ presupposes either ‘morality’ or ‘meaning of knowledge’ or ‘methods of attaining knowledge.’ You have made nothing but foggy assertions. All this is further evidence of what I always had suspected- that most rationalists were theologians in disguise, using disingenuous phrases that ‘look’ philosophical at the surface but are actually a brilliant demonstration of how to manipulate opinion with mellifluous reasoning. Let me ask you about one of those loosey-goosey assertions: what is the concept of knowing w/o using the word ‘know’? How does one gain knowledge? How does one go about and apply this knowledge? Is it interactive? Or is it already engraved in the mind of the knower? Forget about leaning on or borrowing from all the other branches of philosophy for this moment.

The Christian misunderstands the purposes of Jesus Christ’ message and decides that by believing he was the son of the God of Abraham and Moses and the salvation of the immortality of their soul is enough to do the trick. I argue that this is only an endorsement of Pauline Christianity, and has nothing to do with Jesus, who was the only true "Christian" in every sense of the word. You or anyone as a modern day Christian are merely charlatans, phonies or frauds who also misunderstood Paul’s deep hatred of Jews, and in one enlightening moment on the road to Damascus, he found a solution to the Jewish Law- ‘open up their religion to the gentiles! Make it a free-for-all and i've just got the ticket in this Jeezum Kerow character!’ Furthermore, can you list an instance what constitutes a “neutral position” in your book? Since my straw-o-meter has been beeping wildly, I think there’s a cache close by and I detect a very theistic type of trick-a sneaky equivocation in the offing.

False. Epistemology in many forms, since Descartes, has been privileged above all the other branches of philosophy for the last 300 years. Not all knowledge necessarily presupposes a system of morality. By that assertion, I mean the great thinkers have already pulled this stunt a few times: they set out to establish indubitable principles based on certain knowledge- and inferred morality from thereon.

*buzzer* True or false propositions does not presuppose moral values. Unless you demonstrate how this is done, all you have created is a weak assertion that holds no water. Have you ever heard of the <a href="http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nfallacy.htm" target="_blank">naturalistic fallacy?</a> You just committed it. And no, don’t bother reversing your error: you cannot logically derive an ought from an is either!

Ever the rationalist. What exactly is this “ill-defined” obligation that compels the person to accept that whatever he deems as an evidence is solely based on his subjective moral values? There’s a system of knowledge called logic that serve as the fundamentals of human valuation, such as the laws of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and so on. Kant did argue that we presuppose a form of "intuition" when we "perceive" sensory data. He definied the "forms of intuition" as spatio-temporality.

It is right to believe whatever proposition because it is true, not because it is moral or beholden to our subjectivity. I would argue along the lines of Kierkegaard- that there are two kinds of truths- subjective and objective. It is a dire mistake to reduce all truth or knowledge to subjectivity, which is what you are doing here.

I have proven your reasoning is fallacious and false. In order to substantiate this statement you must propose how morality precedes knowledge in every phase of human reality- i.e. knowledge.

Incorrect. This passage exposes a lack of understanding of the development of certain philosophical systems of a lot of thinkers in the past 1000 years. While you could make a case for some, i.e. the moral philosopher David Hume, “right” and “wrong” does not translate to “true” or “false” principles most thinkers occupied themselves with. So there you have it- your first sloppy equivocation in sneaking a moral belief in the place of epistemological correctness.

you haven’t adequately demonstrated how the agnostic presupposes a moral system by choosing a world-view. Here's a hint, free of charge. I would go about this way- a person forms a value system that determines what counts as knowledge. On that basis the person develops his world-view, based on his subjective valuation, and adopts a pre-existing metaphysical outlook that best chimes with his initial world-view. The onus remains upon the individual to determine what constitutes as a value in his perspective, and ergo, he is fully responsible for his decisions, his actions. Yes, very existentialist, and forever dooms man to every choice he has to make. No excuses exists in my philosophy.

Atheist? You started out with the agnostic. What happened with that strawman? Or did you suffer brainlock and decide to go for the rabble-rousing tactic? What actually takes place is that the Christian commits “bad faith” and posits his faith in an ideal of humanity (man is the fundamental desire to be God) and pretends that this absolves him of all accountability. Whereas the atheist may commit bad faith in other areas, i.e. pretend to be ‘wholly’ a secretary, or a cashier, or a computer programmer, as if he could not act otherwise- but that's birdwalking on my account.

eh? How did we get here? Why ‘must’ the agnostic admit in such a fallacious reasoning and prop an ‘get-out-of-jail’ excuse for future behavior? I think you fail to recognize that by creating a false dichotomy you think both examples operate on rigid, fixed, and polarized view points, where in reality they are actually superfluous because humans who create values are responsible for them. The agnostic is responsible for who he is, for formulating his world-view inasmuch the so-called Christian is.

“God exists” is a huge violation of any kind of judicious reasoning on the agnostic’s part. God as a concept is ill-defined, ill-constituted (varies from believer to believer) as well as lacks evidence that may sway the skeptical ‘tude in the agnostic. Moreover, if you ask me, God died for his love of man thousands of years ago. Persisting this spectre of Abraham and David is amusing as a mythological diversion, but it no longer has any place in this day and age of information.

No, it works for charlatans and deceivers like you who prey upon weak willed people whose inclinations towards slave morality make them easy pickings.

Your reasoning so far is full of holes and doesn’t even resemble a logical argument. With this ludricous exposition on slippery reasoning in a haphazard manner, skipping allover from morality to epistemology to theology, you’re biting a lot more here than you can chew.

Here your reasoning is fallacious because you assume that morality must precedes epistemology, that the agnostic does cohere to this illusory pattern you weave. I think you’re only arguing how a person of lazy but resentful mentality, one with herd disposition thinks- perhaps you're painting a picture how you play with metaphysics and enjoy committing logical fallacies.

The Christian only posits faith in a mythological creature and endeavors his entire life in acquiring what he deems to be positive evidence (interpretation plays a heavy factor here) whereas the agnostic uses Occham’s razor far more frequently, especially when it comes to theologian yarn-spinning.

the Christian develops a whacked out epistemology that ignores the basic principles of empiricism, i.e. how he reached at his decision, whereas the agnostic may have taken far more careful steps to arrive at his decision, due to in large part the “withholding judgment” tactic, and may have had less emotionally-charged desires that may sway his decisions. While most Christians formulate their knowledge after social conditioning, or customs and habits, the agnostic pulls a Socrates and analyzes his “unexamined beliefs” and determines whether the evidence is sufficient to meet their criteria for knowledge. The christian's whimsical criteria for knowledge always renders him far more gullible and accepting to beautiful bullshit than the reticent skeptic.

so is the Christian- how would he gain knowledge otherwise? Are there instances of people w/o sensory apparatus who are devout believers of Christianity? Again you display a utter disrespect for honesty in your false dichotomy at delineating agnostics from Christians.

Your second premise is faulty- the agnostic does not “separate the world from God” if he hasn’t posited whether such a fairy tale exists in the first place! First one must become a believer in order to posit that such a mythological creature does exist. Equivocation again. Watch the definitions, bubba!

false. This statement is only a reflection of your feelings upon unbelievers. By faith you adopt a worked out world-view that paints “us-vs-them” mentality, that whosoever isn’t with us is against us, and by building up what actually amounts to a fundamental human drive, God, the “us” invents a specter that haunts “them” by attaching anthropomorphic terminology to this ‘specter’ and invent 'rah-rah' means to rally their faith while condemning the "other."

Never stopped liars or inventors like you before.

Conflating and fudging one’s personal knowledge as ‘knowledge of God’ is an easy trick to pull if you’re a believer, not an agnostic. And all this rhetoric about how god would act towards an unbeliever or a careful skeptic is nothing but a projection of your own feelings, a method to tickle your insecurities, perhaps. Who are you to know the difference between Good and evil? Are you God?

*snorts* In riposte, I argue one is merely more honest and more attentive in how he gains knowledge, while the other holds a large investment, by faithful means, in a mythology, one that took a lifetime to build, but both gain knowledge in the exact same way. The Christian is just plain dishonest about how he gains knowledge by thinking of "justification" or "rationalization" terms, i.e. in retrospect, hindsight and backwards-thinking.

According to the Muslim, Allah is the ultimate source of knowledge and He has revealed Himself to man through the His Word.
According to the Jew, Yaweh is the ultimate source of knowledge and He has revealed Himself to man through the His Word.
According to the Hindu, Brama is the ultimate source of knowledge and He has revealed Himself to man through the His manifestations.
According to the Objectivist, Ayn Rand is the ultimate source of knowledge and She has revealed Herself to man through the Her Fiction.
But you get the idea...

Do you have evidence that may substantiate this assertion in order to graduate it from a gratuitous one to a verified one? My money's on the negatory answer.

Incorrect. The Christian first assumes that a specific God must exist, and only then does he search knowledge (justification) that justifies his wishful thinking- emotionally pleasing. The Christian, like any good theologian, thinks backwards and looks for corroborating evidences that "seems" to legalize his faith.

False. The Christian as well as the agnostic, or anybody of any persuasion already presupposes their senses are ultimate. It’s just that the agnostic recognizes the steps he makes to arrive at his decisions, whereas the Christian seems to assume the truth of religion (by positing faith) first and searches for justification afterwards. Nobody ever became a believer without their senses- first one must hear their parents or a persuasive individual discuss about a mythological figure in order to develop faith in whichever religion.

You’re arguing against the atheists, not the agnostic, who instead chooses the fence-straddling position, i.e., “I have not reached a decisions on whether God exists or not, so I shall withhold judgment until further evidences tips me one way or another.” The atheist either denies the existence of or lacks belief in a mythological figure.

Or that there is a third position that declares both positions are incorrect, or a fourth: that a morality based on the Christian is correct but stop short of believing in a long-dead mythic character. *hint: it's british morality *

Nice goal-tend in the game of epistemology. Too bad it’s an invalid and illegal move and belongs to the ash-bin of Sesame's street.

Are you aware of the dialectical method? That a thesis always promotes its antithesis, and that there are always elements in both to procure a synthesis, which in turns becomes a brand-new thesis... Why settle in this primitive dualistic thinking? Of course your entire post was nothing but self-congratulatory tripe, self-serving or justifies your position, in which you most definitely did not arrive at by what you’ve outlined here. Why bother investigate your own fallacious thinking when it’s easier to caricaturize the other position in easily refutable strawmen at your leisure?

You’ve failed to prove that the agnostic cannot attain ‘neutrality,’ or how ‘neutrality’ is possible on all counts.

Nonsense. I think you need to study logic, critical thinking, epistemology, psychology, and other choice fields in order to learn how to demolish agnosticism much better than you’ve done here. FWIW, your apologetics is also lacking and utterly without substance. Try reading Soren Kierkegaard while you’re at it- he is the only theologian I have any shred of respect for – since he understands God as a paradox and that the “leap of faith” one is required in order to believe is irrational.

~Speaker 4 the Death of God~

((offered up as a sacrifice to the god of UBB))

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Ender the Theothanatologist ]</p>

HelenM

I find it almost impossible to be neutral about latin sign-offs...

However, knowing all things to be possible with God (according to the tradition handed down to me), I will try, in faith

love
Helen

Jayhawker Soule

Well, that was a fun read.

critical thinking made ez

Your Black and White world in which only Christians vs. agnostics exist was an invalid proposition to base your argument on. You might want to rewrite post using "Theist" in place of "Christian". But when you do your argument will start to crumble, even to you.


As a side note, most agnostics deny the existence of the Christian God as well as all the other Gods from our various religions, it is some other unknown god(s) they question exists or not.

Koyaanisqatsi

Congratulations to all! That was the most thoroughly detailed refutation of a bad argument I have ever seen here!

I would have to call it a trouncing in the grandest sense.

Let's form a law firm