Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrLoverLover · 12-23-2001, 04:50 AM

"I am still quite certain - 100% certain! - that I did not eat rabbit for lunch yesterday. The fact that I might be deluded in my belief does not change the fact that I remain certain. If you are suggesting that I must remain agnostic as to yesterday's lunch menu, then you've picked a tough row to hoe."

-"The fact that I might be deluded" is why you can't be certain.

Apikorus · 12-23-2001, 05:49 AM

But I am certain.

Apikorus · 12-23-2001, 05:55 AM

Orpheous, when you or any of my alleged handlers can make me sense that I am doing something extremely unusual (say, eating grass in my bed), then I will take you seriously. Until then, I'm quite certain I am not a brain-in-a-box.

Do you really think this brain-in-a-box argument is important?

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

Doubting Thomas · 12-23-2001, 06:05 AM

The first three FAQ's <a href="http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_atheism.htm" target="_blank">HERE</a> do a fair job of explaining the misconceptions.

Quote:

I've been asked what an agnostic is so many times that I hammered out a very "basic" statement on where I stand:

Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word “agnostic” while looking for a term to describe his own beliefs. He did not consider himself an atheist, a theist, and most certainly not a Christian. His difference with the people who gave themselves the aforenoted labels was that he did not feel certain that he had successfully solved the problem of existence.

Professor Huxley got the term “Gnostic” from the early Christian Gnostics, whom he said, “professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant”, and created the word “agnostic”, with the prefix giving the new word the opposite meaning of the term “Gnostic”.

During Huxley’s lifetime he eventually adjusted the meaning of “agnostic” to fit with his evolving philosophy. He finally came to describe agnosticism as a method of thinking and not a belief in and of itself. His idea was that everyone should be able to give a reason for his or her belief. Or, in his own words: Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle…Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable”(Agnosticism,” 1889). Huxley also said: “That 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” (“Agnosticism and Christianity,” 1889).

Huxley was a talented speaker and was known to state during many debates that he knew nothing about the supernatural which his opponents claimed belief; then, somewhat louder, he would add, “and neither do you.” He also said, “That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow.” The essence of this pragmatic principle means that one has to be open to what honest scientific investigation may discover.

Generally speaking, an agnostic is a person who feels that the existence of a god or gods can neither be proved nor disproved, on the basis of current evidence. Regardless, this does not mean that an agnostic has to accept the theist’s presupposition of a “god” or “gods” as an explanation for the yet unexplained.

Simply put, I feel that one should not profess to believe in something that is yet to be proven.

Huxley, Thomas. Agnosticism and Christianity and Other Essays. New York: Prometheus Books. 1982.

One of the problems I found is that these definitions (atheist, agnostic, etc.) are not black and white. The definitions can vary depending on the source and the person. To some, the "weak atheistic" position is the same as the "agnostic" stance.

In the end I've found that John Q. Public generally doesn't know what an agnostic is and generally likens the atheist to one whom actively denies the existence of God. (usually the Christian version).

At this point I figure we're all on the same team (relatively speaking) and I try not to get so hung up on the philosophical connotations.

-T

Edited to add: Let the debate continue!

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]

Orpheous99 · 12-23-2001, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:
But I am certain.

How are you certain?

Orpheous99 · 12-23-2001, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:
Orpheous, when you or any of my alleged handlers can make me sense that I am doing something extremely unusual (say, eating grass in my bed), then I will take you seriously. Until then, I'm quite certain I am not a brain-in-a-box.

Do you really think this brain-in-a-box argument is important?

I see that it is time for phase 2 of the delusion series. How do you know that eating grass in your bed isn't a normal practice and that we've haven't just made you believe that it wasn't?

Apikorus · 12-23-2001, 06:37 AM

Nope, sorry that doesn't work Orpheous. You have to get me to eat grass in bed before I listen to any more of your nonsense!

MrLoverLover · 12-23-2001, 07:01 AM

Apikorus,

You already said it was a "fact" that you might be deluded (or it could be something else), so the fact that that could happen, no matter how small the probability may be, makes it so you can't be 100% certain that it did happen. You seem to have shown yourself to be wrong without even realizing it. But, if you are certain, knowing there is a fact that you might be deluded, how can you possibly be certain?

Apikorus · 12-23-2001, 07:55 AM

But I am certain that I'm not deluded. Sorry!

Gurdur · 12-23-2001, 07:58 AM

Would somebody please mention "intersubjectivity" and "social epistemology" before I get the screaming meamies?

12-23-2001, 05:55 AM	#43
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Orpheous, when you or any of my alleged handlers can make me sense that I am doing something extremely unusual (say, eating grass in my bed), then I will take you seriously. Until then, I'm quite certain I am not a brain-in-a-box. Do you really think this brain-in-a-box argument is important? [ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-23-2001, 04:50 AM	#41
MrLoverLover Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: United States Posts: 63	"I am still quite certain - 100% certain! - that I did not eat rabbit for lunch yesterday. The fact that I might be deluded in my belief does not change the fact that I remain certain. If you are suggesting that I must remain agnostic as to yesterday's lunch menu, then you've picked a tough row to hoe." -"The fact that I might be deluded" is why you can't be certain.

12-23-2001, 05:49 AM	#42
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	But I am certain.

12-23-2001, 06:37 AM	#47
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Nope, sorry that doesn't work Orpheous. You have to get me to eat grass in bed before I listen to any more of your nonsense!

12-23-2001, 07:01 AM	#48
MrLoverLover Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: United States Posts: 63	Apikorus, You already said it was a "fact" that you might be deluded (or it could be something else), so the fact that that could happen, no matter how small the probability may be, makes it so you can't be 100% certain that it did happen. You seem to have shown yourself to be wrong without even realizing it. But, if you are certain, knowing there is a fact that you might be deluded, how can you possibly be certain?

12-23-2001, 07:55 AM	#49
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	But I am certain that I'm not deluded. Sorry!

12-23-2001, 07:58 AM	#50
Gurdur Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Buggered if I know Posts: 12,410	Would somebody please mention "intersubjectivity" and "social epistemology" before I get the screaming meamies?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.