Technotranscendence wrote:
> On Saturday, March 11, 2000 10:19 PM Robert Owen rowen@technologist.com
> wrote:
> > My intent is not to resurrect an old and contentious
> > thread...
>
> But you have done just that -- i.e., resurrect a thread.:)
But this was certainly an unintended consequence; it never occurred
to me that someone might disagree with my proposition.
> > The key to proper differentiation is, in my opinion,
> > the concept of "doubt" and the "doubtable".
>
> I disagree in this specific case. I define "theist" as "one who believes in
> a God or gods" and "atheist" as "one who is not a theist" -- the latter does
> not have such beliefs.
For any such positions to be significant, the individual must intentionally
ascribe these predicates to him/herself. For me to attribute atheism to
a polynesian who affirmed the efficacy of "mana" but was ignorant of any
personified gods or goddesses would be ridiculous. To be either a "theist"
or "atheist" one must understand these concepts and make a knowledgeable
judgment about which, as far as s/he is concerned, correctly describes
reality as they understand it. As ridiculous as ascribing "atheism" to an
infant.
> This is a pure belief view of both. By these
> definitions, no epistemology or argument is implied. One could be an
> atheist merely because one was never taught about religion. Or one could be
> an atheist because one blindly follows on this issue another person who is
> an atheist. The same could be said of the theist.
As, in the above paragraph, I strongly disagree that one can be an unconscious
atheist, because one cannot take any responsibility for this position. The same
is true of the mindless compulsion to follow a leader, whether the ideology is
atheism or theism. A voluntary and informed consent is required.
The entire discussion presupposes the persons have at least reached the
Age of Reason with sufficient self-understanding to assess a statement
such as "There is a superior power that created you and the universe and
who knows everything about you at all times and who has decided what
action you are to take in every situation; denying that you are his subject
ignoring his plan for you and deliberately violating his laws will result in
severe punishment. There is nothing you can do to free yourself from this
situation."
> > Regarding any proposition that must be either "true"
> > or "false", or any two positions one of which may be
> > true but both of which cannot be "true", then if one
> > "willingly suspends belief" in either and postpones a
> > logical judgment one may be called a SKEPTIC.
> >
> > If, on the contrary, one affirms that either but not
> > both is true (i.e. one is true and one is false)then
> > one may be called a DOGMATIST.
>
> The problem here is Robert is using terms which connote certain things.
> Generally, a dogmatist is not one who believes such proposition because she
> has to choose, BUT rather one who believes without proper validation.
> That's the conventional way the term is used. As such, the term has a
> certain connotation -- i.e., that the dogmatist is irrational or, even when
> she is right, she's probably right for the wrong reasons.
When I use the word "dogmatist" no pejorative connotation is implied; to
me it simply means those who affirm the truth of a proposition in the
absence of any compelling factual justification, generally accompanied by
some appeal to authority. There is no possible way of inductively or
deductively proving the universal non-existence of something, and so far
no convincing evidence of the existence of a Supreme Being external to,
and/or participative in, the Universe having the properties of Necessary
and Infinite Being, Omniscience, Omnipotence, the ability to create ex
nihilo, and upon which the existence of all finite things depends.
> The usual reason in this area -- theism vs.
> atheism -- is some claim there's not enough evidence to decide. But that
> remains to be proven, because I would claim there IS enough evidence to
> decide in favor of atheism -- that is, atheism is defensible.
Yes. The suspension of judgment occurs when the evidence does not
permit the verification of an assertion of the existence or the non-existence
of something. To say that both options are "doubtful' simply means to me
that a basic uncertainty attaches to both which in one case it is impossible
to resolve, and in the other some supernatural event to resolve.
I must simply deny the truth of your statement that "there IS enough evi-
dence to decide in favor of atheism." Not because I am a theist (in fact,
my persuasion is skeptical) but on purely logical grounds. To define the
term "agnostic" to emphasis my point:
"Agnosticism is the thesis that, contrary to what atheists and
theists alike assume, it is either in practice or in principle im-
possible to know whether or not God exists.
Thus I prefer the word "skeptic" to preserve the distinction between "the
unknown" and "the unknowable". "Agnostic" literally means the negation
("a") of knowing ("gnosis") (c.f. "gnosticism). To a classical Hellene, this
word meant "of whatever gods there may be, nothing whatever can be
known."
> Just that therea re two possibilities does not reduce one
> to skepticism. There always must be a basis for doubt.
There is such a basis with respect to two propositions which are contra-
dictories; one must be true but both cannot be true. Either there is a
God or there isn't. When I say "I doubt both propositions" I mean I cannot
logically or empirically decide between them. The lexical meaning of "doubt"
is simply "uncertainty" and "questionability" and this is what I mean. So --
when confronted with a declarative sentence, if its truth is to me uncertain
or questionable then I "doubt" it.
> > In this sense, the meaning of "Agnostic" is softened
> > from asserting that the logical status of a proposition
> > is undecidable, to one that implies withholding judg-
> > ment given the current state of knowledge. And,
> > pari passu, propositions advanced by BOTH the
> > "Atheist" and "Theist" must be classified as "Dogmatic".
>
> But by Robert's defintion, that I claim to exist and be conscious now makes
> me a dogmatist.:) [1] That Robert claims his view is correct regarding this
> classification -- i.e., that his meaning of agnostic is coherent and that
> the contrary view that it is not is not true -- makes him a dogmatist. The
> terms become nearly useless.
Here is the passage concerning "Agnostic" in my original post"
In this sense, the meaning of "Agnostic" is softened
to one that implies withholding judgment given the
current state of knowledge. And, pari passu, proposi-
tions advanced by BOTH the "Atheist" and "Theist"
must be classified as "Dogmatic".
I see nothing vague here: I am merely suggesting that "Skeptic"
is a more conciliatory word than "Agnostic" -- As a skeptic,
I am willing to be convinced by evidence either way. I do not
regard the existence of some extraordinary cosmic Being as out
of the question -- I as a skeptic don't know, whereas both the
"atheist" and the "theist" DO know, BUT ON INSUFFICIENT GROUNDS.
Please note, Daniel, that I am deleting your following discuss-
ion for the sake of space, but of course we can address those
points as well. Your subsequent thoughts are quite interesting
to me, as is this topic.
Best wishes,
Bob
P.S. Descartes actually began his "Meditations" with "Dubito
ergo sum" but later changed it to "Cogito". Interesting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Indeed it does -- the only "proof" you offer is an appeal to your
own authority. There is at least one person on this list would deny
your claim of "consciousness" and "personal identity".
=======================
Robert M. Owen
Director
The Orion Institute
57 W. Morgan Street
Brevard, NC 28712-3659 USA
=======================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:57 MDT