Jayhawker Soule

I'm confused. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Jayhawker Soule

Having previously asked:

"Can one be an agnostic with respect to theism and any less ambivalent with respect to philosophical naturalism without reducing the term "naturalism" to some meaningless tautology?"

Yes, you say, one can be an agnostic with no danger of "reducing the term "naturalism" to some meaningless tautology?" because <ol type="1">[*]of the job description of the guy who coined the term over a century ago, and[*]the term 'supernaturalism' is "incoherent" since everything is "an aspect of the natural world"[/list=a]It seems to me that you began with an appeal to authority only to end by agreeing with me while shaking your head "no".

Agnosticism as "process", and agnosticism "as it was originally defined" are clearly important and interrelated points to you, points which I frankly do not understand. Perhaps you could provide some quotes by Huxley pertaining to this 'process of agnosticism'. In the meantime, conflating "conclusion" with "absolute claim" is a straw man. I too endorse motherhood and eschew absolutism. But the protocols of science (process) result in statements about the natural world (conclusions) that are no less warranted by virtue of being provisional rather than absolute.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Amos

Sometimes that happens when you have to keep it real.

Jamie_L

In response to the OP: Of course it's possible.

Example: A form of Deism
The natural universe is a closed system unto itself. Nothing supernatural can cause any effect in the natural world. However, the whole thing was set in motion by a supernatural first cause.

Now, one could conceive of this, but remain agnostic on the basis that there is no way to know one way or the other if that first cause was supernatural.

With respect to other supernatural phenomena, it seems to me that small-scale supernatural phenomena have quite a history of EVIDENCE to the effect of fakery, hoaxes, and the like. A super-natural first cause has no evidence either way. So, it seems to me one could hold different opinions on the two types of phenomena and still be relatively consistent in ones beliefs.

Jamie

ksagnostic

Amos, an aside and truly nothing personal, but I am not going to even bother trying to have a discussion with you.

Amos

</strong>

Correct. </strong>

If an amoeba has senses it has an identity to perceive and if it can perceive it has a soul wherein perception is retained to form this identity.

Two at least and neither is good or bad but they are needed for the purpose of adaptation. We have an external and an internal identity. The internal identity is what I call our soul and our external identity is our persona or ego awareness.

Superego is Frued, I think, and he never really was clear on what the superego is. </strong>

Plants are not born with an incarnate soul and have no memory to select between good and evil. Mutations do occur but they are not the reason behind adaptation. Adaptation implies intelligence and mutations are freaks of nature.

You are thinking of metamorphosis with the butterfly cange and I think it is great that Christian scientists study the Kabbalah.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

ksagnostic

1) Your misusing the "appeal to authority" accusation here. Your argument, after all, is that agnosticism is incompatable with naturalism, but that argument is rendered somewhat ironic when the person who coined the term agnosticism for an approach to theological (and other questions) was himself well known for being a natural scientist, one who at least practiced methodological naturalism, if not metaphysical naturalism. Exceptions to the claim you make are therefore relevant.
2) That we may agree about "supernaturalism" does not support your argument. You're the one who this claim: "I would think that any allowance for the possibility of God(s) inherits, at a minimum, an equal allowance for the possibility of past, present, and/or future supernatural phenomena." --&gt;again, emphasis added by me. Well, I am an agnostic who is not making an equal allowance for the possibility of supernatural phenomenea as I do for any possible existence of "gods", because not all god claims rely on the hypothetical existence of the supernatural.


"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle."

Thomas Huxley

Method describes an approach. I use process in much the same way.

By the way, be very very careful about the way you are waving the straw man sword around. You'll cut yourself. For example, if you want to accuse me of conflating "conclusion" with "absolute claim", you might want to make sure that's what I am doing.

For example, on my very first post on this thread, a response to you, I also said:

"Atheism is a conclusion (strong or tentative) on a single set of questions." --&gt;emphasis added by me.

I am well aware that conclusions can be provisional, and being an agnostic does not prevent me from coming to conclusions. To go back to Huxley: "In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

I read that as "label provisional conclusions as provisional" (or tentative, I do like provisional better myself). My conclusion about the non-existence of Jehovah is probably no more tentative than yours is, because there is evidence that the original Jehovah was another regionally developed father god. Regarding the question; "Is the universe an intelligent artifact?"; I am less certain, and therefore my conclusion that it is probably not (an intelligent artifact) is more tentative, or provisional, but not subject to change unless I see evidence to the contrary.

Whether a conclusion is absolute or provisonal is absolutely immaterial to my argument here. I have been told many times that I am "really" an atheist. My reply has been that atheism describes the conclusion one has come with regards to a single set of questions, but agnosticism describes a process (or method) which one applies to questions, including the "existence of god" questions. Whether the conclusion is absolute or provisional is irrelevant, when one says "I am an atheist" one is still emphasizing the conclusion over the process used to arrive at the conclusion. I call myself an agnostic because I prefer to describe myself by the method or process I employ when responding to questions, including "existence of god" or other religious, questions.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

You hypothetically posit the supernatural and then claim to know its characteristics and limitations. How can this possibly be anything other than an statement of faith?

Jamie_L

I wasn't making claims of truth, claims about what I believe, or claims about what others should believe. I was simply responding to the OP question:

Can you be agnostic WRT deities, but more certain in a belief of naturalism. I simply presented one possible scenario that I think shows that it is possible. My words describing what it means for nature to be a closed system were hastily chosen. I won't start down the road of defining naturalism here, as that doesn't seem to be the intent of the thread.

Jamie

sandlewood

If my world had only animals that were elephants, horses, wolves, and pigs, I might then devise a “natural law” that nothing can defeat gravity. No animal can break the law of gravity. But then if one day I saw a sparrow, I might say that this is a supernatural act because the sparrow has, at will, ignored a natural law. But more than likely, I would adjust my law of nature to allow for flying animals.

If giants can levitate and cars can be turned into lime Jello, then our natural laws are wrong and need to be updated to include those things.

If God is unknowable, then how do you know that the God you know to exist is the same one as you’re expecting? You might know that something exists, but how do you know that that’s God unless you know the character as well? Could it be something less than God?

Hmmm. I thought I was agreeing with your originally post. But maybe I’m not understanding it as well as I thought I was.