Science, Religion, and the Surrounding Confusion.

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by Cicero

Life is full of suffering. Everyone will have enough of it I am sure. There's no reason to invite more suffering in this world for the sake of a perception of god.

"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says anything else is selling something."-The Man in Black in The Princess Bride.

[miketrees]

@ Flinto
You are only saying that since I offered to do that cyber thingy with you.
Until I found out what cyber thing is of course

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Anyway, I just think that suggesting someone is a bit pathetic because they don't have a label for their particular belief system is a bit unfair.

Particularly when people are actively working on their belief system. How can you effectively label what isn't static?

[DanaC]

But that's kind of the point really. Labels I mean. It's not agnosticism that is irritating. It is the suggestion that agnosticism is a superior intellectual position to either faith, or atheism. Intellectual agnosticism presupposes that atheism is closed to the unknown. It is not. That would be as absurd as holding that faith is not open to doubt.

It's not about what we believe, it is about how we arrive at our belief systems. Agnosticism is a perfectly acceptable way to lead one's life, but when you intellectualise it, it is an uncomfortable pairing of two modes of thinking (scientific and non-scientific). It attempts to view the world on the basis of evidence, but allows for the possibility that faith can answer our questions more effectively. It is a chimera.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by DanaC

But that's kind of the point really. Labels I mean. It's not agnosticism that is irritating. It is the suggestion that agnosticism is a superior intellectual position to either faith, or atheism. Intellectual agnosticism presupposes that atheism is closed to the unknown. It is not. That would be as absurd as holding that faith is not open to doubt.

It's not about what we believe, it is about how we arrive at our belief systems. Agnosticism is a perfectly acceptable way to lead one's life, but when you intellectualise it, it is an uncomfortable pairing of two modes of thinking (scientific and non-scientific). It attempts to view the world on the basis of evidence, but allows for the possibility that faith can answer our questions more effectively. It is a chimera.

Atheism has multiple positions, so careful with that one as well.

There are atheists that assert that there is no God and there are atheists that simply refuse to take a position based on the evidence at hand.

To me it's the agnostics that have the weakest position morally and the the strong atheists who have the weakest position philosophically.

[DanaC]

I repeat:

Intellectual agnosticism presupposes that atheism is closed to the unknown. It is not.

Atheism has a very specific definition. How people choose to argue their atheism, how they choose to interpret their atheism and their reasons for that stance, are an individual affair. But to presuppose atheism as a closed-minded state is incorrect. Intellectual atheism bases its conclusions on a lack of evidence for God and a lack of reason to suppose his existence. By that definition, intellectual agnosticism is unnecessary. If the evidence existed for God, then the conclusions drawn by intellectual atheism would be different than they are.

Intellectual agnosticism does not differ from atheism in that it allows for the possibility of God, it differs from atheism in that it allows for the possible value of faith.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by DanaC

But that's kind of the point really. Labels I mean. It's not agnosticism that is irritating. It is the suggestion that agnosticism is a superior intellectual position to either faith, or atheism.

I've never considered people who are agnostic to be more or less intellectual than anyone else. They are what they are regardless of how they do or don't perceive god and religion.

Intellectual agnosticism presupposes that atheism is closed to the unknown. It is not.

Is this just what you believe or is it a fact?

I've known a number of people who call themselves atheists but who are still quite spiritual and allow for the notion of a god somewhere.

It's not about what we believe, it is about how we arrive at our belief systems. Agnosticism is a perfectly acceptable way to lead one's life, but when you intellectualise it, it is an uncomfortable pairing of two modes of thinking (scientific and non-scientific). It attempts to view the world on the basis of evidence, but allows for the possibility that faith can answer our questions more effectively. It is a chimera.

The biggest problem with the rest of the world versus agnostics is that both believers and non-believers can't understand how you can see no scientific evidence of god, but still believe he or something that constitutes what we perceive as god to exist, whilst still believing in the spirit of living things. From my perspective, most believers or non-believers simply can't handle not knowing what's going to happen when they die, so in order to validate the way they live their lives, they decide to either believe there's a benefit to being good so they can go to heaven, and the non-believers (in god) believe their judgement is right here and now, so the ultimate judgement of their lives is in the here and now. So they'd better be good or everyone will think they're arseholes.

Anyway, you see now how agnostics are forced to intellectualize their belief system because people wont let them just believe what they want to believe?

[DanaC]

Anyway, you see now how agnostics are forced to intellectualize their belief system because people wont let them just believe what they want to believe?

Mmm. I disagree. The reason I started railing against agnosticism in this thread was this post from miketrees:

Well DanaC if you are an atheist you have too much faith that you know everything
Stick with us agnostics, have a bet each way and admit there just might be things out there you have not seen or understood

It was this attitude I was taking exception to, an attitude (and argument) I have encountered many times from people who consider themselves to be agnostic. The fact that I have stated I am an atheist, does mean that I consider I know, or understand everything 'out there'. And I still consider the bet-hedging approach a cop-out.

[Aliantha]

Well I don't know what miktrees' point was, but I thought he was having a bit of a joke actually.

I don't personally see my beliefs as hedging my bets though. In all things in life I try to avoid the all or nothing approach. This has served me fairly well. I find it hard to justify simply following what any church tells me about how I should live my life because I find too much ambiguity in most religious doctrine. I do however believe there's a higher power, and I don't need a middle man like a priest or reverend to put me in touch with him/her/it.

How bout this as a metaphor. The church is to the faithful, what the unions are to workers. If you have enough faith in yourself, and an ability to stand for your own actions and to have faith in your convictions, you don't need a middle man or someone else to speak for you or tell you what you should do. You just do it, knowing that you are doing the job of life the best way you possibly can.

[DanaC]

Not sure how well that analogy works though Ali. Unions aren't just about bolstering your convictions and speaking 'for' you. Unions are about strength in numbers which in some circumstances provides a useful counterbalance to the economic strength of the employers. You can stand for your own actions and be brimful of faith in your convictions, but it won't stop you getting shat on if unemployment is high and union power low.

[Aliantha]

I understand how unions work. I realize they have a very useful purpose for many employees, just as the church has a very useful purpose for the faithful. It wont stop lots of the faithful from being shat on if and when their so called judgement day comes around though, and certainly wont save them all if 'the rapture' happens to occur either.

As far as unions go, they are good for workers of lower status who don't have an opportunity to speak up for themselves in times of crisis. I'm not against unions, just as I am not against the church. I simply have had no use for either in my life.

[Aliantha]

Just a note to add.

I wouldn't discourage anyone from joining a church or a union if they felt it was what was right for them. There are far worse things one can do with life than to believe in the safety and strength of numbers.

[DanaC]

As far as unions go, they are good for workers of lower status who don't have an opportunity to speak up for themselves in times of crisis.

They're not just useful for lower paid workers y'know:P

[Aliantha]

I know, but it's the proletariat they were designed for.

[DanaC]

Well, depends on your definition of proletariats really. Initially they were developed by and for the artisan class, the so-called working-class aristocracy.