tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post8218645336703087213..comments2023-12-01T11:40:00.045+11:00Comments on Dikkii's Diatribe: Why did you end up agnostic? (Part 4)Dikkiihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07897381809885423712noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-80421508095865987172007-05-30T10:25:00.000+10:002007-05-30T10:25:00.000+10:00Anonymous - you clearly have a brain the size of a...Anonymous - you clearly have a brain the size of a planet and I bow to your superior intellect.Dikkiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07897381809885423712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-36656352223548360332007-05-30T10:24:00.000+10:002007-05-30T10:24:00.000+10:00Hi Blake,I'm well aware that the definition of "be...Hi Blake,<BR/><BR/>I'm well aware that the definition of "begs the question" has been strictly defined as the logical fallacy of using elliptical statements while leaving the contents of the ellipses implied.<BR/><BR/>I think that the English language is the poorer for this narrow definition of this phrase - and I choose to "misuse" the phrase as a form of protest.<BR/><BR/>Mind you, it's difficult to misuse a phrase that's already being mangled. You're the first person who's picked me up on this.Dikkiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07897381809885423712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-91818914105148104192007-05-30T09:42:00.000+10:002007-05-30T09:42:00.000+10:00mannnnn, fuck agnosticsmannnnn, fuck agnosticsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-12602730207515208022007-05-30T06:23:00.000+10:002007-05-30T06:23:00.000+10:00Enjoyed reading this. Just wanted to jump in quite...Enjoyed reading this. Just wanted to jump in quite late and point out a common misuse of "begs the question." I suggest it be replaced with "raises the question" as begging the question is an informal fallacy.<BR/><BR/>Now I've got to go back and read the first three parts. Cheers,<BR/><BR/>Blakenohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16382800482390310676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-9801131136245269312007-04-29T02:41:00.000+10:002007-04-29T02:41:00.000+10:00But is there a way we can distinguish opportunisti...<I>But is there a way we can distinguish opportunistic goalpost-shifting with legitimate refinement of a hypothesis? I think there is a difference here, that would relate to 'core' and 'peripheral' features of a hypothesis (which I appreciate is a bit vague).</I><BR/><BR/>I must admit, this is a concept that I haven't even considered.<BR/><BR/>Even so, the possibilities for goalpost-shifting still appear quite limitless from my point of view. It'll be a little while yet before we're able to construct a testable hypothesis from what I still consider to be outright speculation.<BR/><BR/>And, unlike what Dawkins thinks, I think that most agnostics will gladly admit to being wrong on that day.<BR/><BR/>Just think it's a long way off, is all.<BR/><BR/><I>It kind of strikes me that if agnosticism is going to be based on the idea that goalposts can always be shifted, then what it'd come down to is 'nothing can be known concerning what those crazy theist guys are gonna come up with next!'</I><BR/><BR/>Well, in a nutshell, yes. Sadly, theists have shown that that they can embrace irrationality on a level which can't even be guessed at, let alone forcast.<BR/><BR/>OK, you might get the odd Spong, or Collins who will attampt to throw some rational thought into the equation. But they're few and far between.<BR/><BR/>The onus for clarifying the deity definition does NOT fall on agnostics or atheists - it falls on theists. However, as only non-theist (that's non then theist, not nontheist) freethinkers appear to be willing enough to put the claim under a microscope, theists are going to be in no rush to assist with a workable definition.Dikkiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07897381809885423712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-56176830855724171572007-04-27T20:25:00.000+10:002007-04-27T20:25:00.000+10:00in the real world, the pressure would be on Russel...<I>in the real world, the pressure would be on Russell, and Sagan for that matter, to provide evidence for their claims before making anyone attempt to disprove it. After all, they're the ones making the extraordinary claim.</I><BR/><BR/>Absolutely right. And it's true, there is goalpost-shifting when you wave an objection at theists (or for that matter all sorts of people defending some belief or other).<BR/><BR/>But is there a way we can distinguish opportunistic goalpost-shifting with legitimate refinement of a hypothesis? I think there is a difference here, that would relate to 'core' and 'peripheral' features of a hypothesis (which I appreciate is a bit vague).<BR/><BR/>It kind of strikes me that if agnosticism is going to be based on the idea that goalposts can always be shifted, then what it'd come down to is 'nothing can be known concerning what those crazy theist guys are gonna come up with next!'Tom Freemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02997295899017354602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-44429981789198089502007-04-27T03:05:00.000+10:002007-04-27T03:05:00.000+10:00G'day Tom, and thanks for dropping by. But there's...G'day Tom, and thanks for dropping by. <BR/><BR/><I>But there's something that gets me about agnosticism, which is often presented as a sensible, modest sort of position - if it's the belief that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God, then don't there need to be arguments for that? How do we know that this can't be known (not that I want to get all Rumsfeldian on you).</I><BR/><BR/>Put simply, theists will always have an out. They're continually moving the goalposts on what gods are, and until we have an agreed definition as to what they are, it is impossible to even construct a hypothesis, let alone test it.<BR/><BR/>Given this kind of unreasonableness, why should we expect to ever be able to know?<BR/><BR/><I>Take the Jupiter scarecrow - maybe we could get some relevant evidence.</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe. The point that Russell was making with his teapot was that evidence showing it to be there is irrelevant. It was a thought experiment to demonstrate that you can't prove a negative. The teapot itself is a little like Sagan's dragon - how do you prove that it's there?<BR/><BR/><I>But say that we do see that orbiting Jupiter are a whole load of relaxed-looking crows (it's a really good telescope). Surely, if there were a scarecrow there, then the crows would have flown off to Saturn instead.</I><BR/><BR/>A scarecrowist would move the goalposts in this instance and they might say that the crows might not be necessarily scared of the scarecrow.<BR/><BR/>But at least a scarecrow is a definable object. Not like a deity. We know that in most instances, where there is a scarecrow, there aren't usually crows.<BR/><BR/>And, your point is well made, but what if there weren't any crows? Could we automatically say that the scarecrow scared them off? Or might it be that there weren't any to begin with?<BR/><BR/><I>So how do we know that there couldn't be any relevant evidence for or against god's existence?</I><BR/><BR/>Sagan's dragon is a good place to start. He postulates having <A HREF="http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm" REL="nofollow">a fire-breathing dragon</A> in the garage.<BR/><BR/>After what seems like aeons of goalpost shifting, the "observer" will be forced at some point to cut their losses and say, "You cannot prove that there is a fire-breathing dragon in your garage. It is impossible to know."<BR/><BR/>And given that Sagan's claim in the extraordinary one, it's reasonable to totally not believe it until someone comes up with a way to test for it.<BR/><BR/>All we can do is to reject the claim outright, until someone gives us something we can objectively measure, which Sagan's dragon, or for that matter, Russell's teapot doesn't provide us with.<BR/><BR/>And as Russell's teapot demonstrates - you can't prove the null hypothesis, either.<BR/><BR/>Mind you, in the real world, the pressure would be on Russell, and Sagan for that matter, to provide evidence for their claims before making anyone attempt to disprove it. After all, they're the ones making the extraordinary claim.<BR/><BR/>Did that make sense?Dikkiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07897381809885423712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-65012160136019826142007-04-27T02:15:00.000+10:002007-04-27T02:15:00.000+10:00Hi Dikki, nice bunch of posts you've got here.I've...Hi Dikki, nice bunch of posts you've got here.<BR/><BR/>I've not read the Dawkins book, but it does sound like you've skewered him pretty well.<BR/><BR/>But there's something that gets me about agnosticism, which is often presented as a sensible, modest sort of position - if it's the belief that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God, then don't there need to be arguments for that? How do we <I>know</I> that this can't be known (not that I want to get all <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Known_unknown" REL="nofollow">Rumsfeldian</A> on you).<BR/><BR/>Take the Jupiter scarecrow - maybe we could get some relevant evidence.<BR/><BR/>Say we train our best telescope on the planet but can't find an orbiting scarecrow. Well, that doesn't prove there isn't one. But say that we do see that orbiting Jupiter are a whole load of relaxed-looking crows (it's a really good telescope). Surely, if there were a scarecrow there, then the crows would have flown off to Saturn instead.<BR/><BR/>(Which segues into the problem of evil.)<BR/><BR/>So how do we know that there couldn't be any relevant evidence for or against god's existence?Tom Freemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02997295899017354602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-50900528693579423912007-04-17T02:27:00.000+10:002007-04-17T02:27:00.000+10:00Don't mention it, OG. Thanks for dropping by mine...Don't mention it, OG. Thanks for dropping by mine.Dikkiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07897381809885423712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-54436970559999515142007-04-17T02:24:00.000+10:002007-04-17T02:24:00.000+10:00Hey, thanks for coming by my blog to read my serie...Hey, thanks for coming by my blog to read my series. It was difficult for me to expose such a personal part of me, but the response has been so positive. It's made me feel good about expressing myself.<BR/><BR/>I hope you have a great day!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429263099197981481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-91139901996468786012007-04-05T00:37:00.000+10:002007-04-05T00:37:00.000+10:00Hi OG:I'm kind of new to the atheist debate, but f...Hi OG:<BR/><BR/><I>I'm kind of new to the atheist debate, but from what I've read, I think most atheists have a problem when they see people define themselves as agnostic because they won't rule out some chance of a god, yet will rule out fairies, ghosts, superstitious mumbo-jumbo, etc mostly because we are raised with a cultural bias.</I><BR/><BR/>I guess this is true to some extent. Most people who were brought up Christian will poo-poo voodoo and hindu gods as superstition.<BR/><BR/>And I guess that, for me, anyway, this really hit the nail on the head:<BR/><BR/><I>You obviously weren't raised with that bias. You're not holding on to a little bit of belief. You never had any (religious) belief to begin with.</I><BR/><BR/>Which is a little sad in a lot of respects. I've never experienced a de-conversion which, from all accounts, appears to be a rather humbling, yet empowering experience. And I don't think I ever will.<BR/><BR/><I>The apatheist I hadn't heard of before and it's an interesting concept. I think many people are that way. They just don't care.</I><BR/><BR/>Having grown up apatheist, I agree with you on this. This probably represents a bigger threat to the traditionalist churches than anything else - religion doesn't register with this demographic.<BR/><BR/><I>I haven't read Dawkin's book, btw, so I'm not qualified to compare your argument to what he wrote.</I><BR/><BR/>You should read it. I personally think it's excellent. Except when he bags agnostics. Which is only a very small section.Dikkiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07897381809885423712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-67203339699800824112007-04-04T04:53:00.000+10:002007-04-04T04:53:00.000+10:00I think this is the difference between my husband ...I think this is the difference between my husband and I. I am absolutely comfortable with saying that there is no god just as I'm absolutely comfortable with saying that there's no santa claus or fairies or ghosts. The only difference I can see between them is that I was raised with a cultural bias towards believing in God. I may be wrong. That's ok. I'm ok with being wrong if someone can give me a convincing argument (with evidence) of why I'm wrong. But I'm not going to say there's a possibility that there's a god because I believe it's all made up, just like santa claus (in his current form) and ghosts.<BR/><BR/>My husband, on the other hand, doesn't want to rule out the possibility because he doesn't want to be wrong. So he leaves it as an open question. Perhaps he's even borderline theist, but I don't think he considers himself that.<BR/><BR/>I'm kind of new to the atheist debate, but from what I've read, I think most atheists have a problem when they see people define themselves as agnostic because they won't rule out some chance of a god, yet will rule out fairies, ghosts, superstitious mumbo-jumbo, etc mostly because we are raised with a cultural bias.<BR/><BR/>You obviously weren't raised with that bias. You're not holding on to a little bit of belief. You never had any (religious) belief to begin with.<BR/><BR/>The apatheist I hadn't heard of before and it's an interesting concept. I think many people are that way. They just don't care.<BR/><BR/>I haven't read Dawkin's book, btw, so I'm not qualified to compare your argument to what he wrote.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429263099197981481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-34743775774239345852007-04-04T02:22:00.000+10:002007-04-04T02:22:00.000+10:00Hi OG, and thanks for dropping by.You wrote:It sou...Hi OG, and thanks for dropping by.<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>It sounds like semantics to me. I consider myself an atheist, my husband considers himself an agnostic. We believe the same, from what I can tell.</I><BR/><BR/>Which is precisely the point that I made in Part 3.<BR/><BR/>And maybe it is "semantics". However, that wasn't the point that I was making in this part.<BR/><BR/>I think that semantics are important - one of the reasons I don't identify as an atheist, is that the definition of atheism seems to be so heavily debated that I'm not even really sure what it is that atheists (dis)believe in. I discussed this in Part 3.<BR/><BR/>The triviality of semantic arguments aside, that's a <B>pretty powerful</B> reason in my book.<BR/><BR/>You also wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Until there's credible evidence, I don't believe in a god. I'd rather say, "nope, it's not real" than argue of the semantics that it might be. My husband, on the other hand, doesn't believe there's a god, but he won't rule out the possiblity that there isn't one.</I><BR/><BR/>Your husband is actually making two separate statements, here. Neither of which are inconsistent with each other.<BR/><BR/>You appear to recognise that - although you didn't mention, for comparison purposes, what kind of possibility or even probability <B>you</B> attach to non-existence.<BR/><BR/>This is important, yet most atheists these days seem to prefer to address the existence side of the equation only, and, as I pointed out in Part 3, this is problematic.<BR/><BR/>Again, though, I did actually (though you wouldn't believe it) attempt to steer clear of semantics in this part.<BR/><BR/>My main point of Part 4 was that <B>some</B> (most definitely not the majority) atheists have a rather low opinion of agnostics and Dawkins appears to be one of them.<BR/><BR/>And, just like Dawkins, this is usually based on misconceptions of agnosticism.<BR/><BR/><I>It's never been an issue between us.</I><BR/><BR/>Good to hear. And it shouldn't be, either.<BR/><BR/>And I'm glad you're enjoying my series.Dikkiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07897381809885423712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-70976283269678743962007-04-04T01:41:00.000+10:002007-04-04T01:41:00.000+10:00P.S. I came via Carnival of the Godless and I'm en...P.S. I came via <A HREF="http://abstractnonsense.wordpress.com/2007/04/01/carnival-of-the-godless-youre-going-to-hell-edition/" REL="nofollow">Carnival of the Godless</A> and I'm enjoying your series.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429263099197981481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-21435772353556052302007-04-04T01:39:00.000+10:002007-04-04T01:39:00.000+10:00It sounds like semantics to me. I consider myself...It sounds like semantics to me. I consider myself an atheist, my husband considers himself an agnostic. We believe the same, from what I can tell.<BR/><BR/>Until there's credible evidence, I don't believe in a god. I'd rather say, "nope, it's not real" than argue of the semantics that it might be.<BR/><BR/>My husband, on the other hand, doesn't believe there's a god, but he won't rule out the possiblity that there isn't one.<BR/><BR/>It's never been an issue between us.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09429263099197981481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-29149546294194813042007-04-03T09:27:00.000+10:002007-04-03T09:27:00.000+10:00Actually I'm going to qualify my last paragraph th...Actually I'm going to qualify my last paragraph that I wrote in my response to you, Rick.<BR/><BR/>I don't agree that large-a atheism is irrational, per se. Is it irrational to believe in the null hypothesis?<BR/><BR/>Having said that, my last paragraph still stands, that is, that some large-a atheists get a bit dogmatic about their position.Dikkiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07897381809885423712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-66827162416079490422007-04-03T08:56:00.000+10:002007-04-03T08:56:00.000+10:00Hi Rick, and thanks for dropping by.Really? Most a...Hi Rick, and thanks for dropping by.<BR/><BR/><I>Really? Most atheists I've encountered are agnostic atheists (my wife uses the term scientific atheists to mean the same thing) and Dawkin's self described himself as an agnostic atheist on his recent "Fresh Air" interview. I've read a few, but never met any big A atheists. I find their point of view as irrational as any godder's. </I><BR/><BR/>I'm still not sure if I really like the term, "agnostic atheist".<BR/><BR/>On one hand, I think it is a rather apt description of a small-a atheist.<BR/><BR/>On the other, it seems to be a bit of a mouthful, where the term agnostic on its own seems to say enough without having to flap your gums any more.<BR/><BR/>Agree with you about large-a atheists, though. They do appear to get a little, how shall I say, dogmatic about their belief in no gods.Dikkiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07897381809885423712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-6391435127381942902007-04-02T22:27:00.000+10:002007-04-02T22:27:00.000+10:00Really? Most atheists I've encountered are agnost...Really? Most atheists I've encountered are agnostic atheists (my wife uses the term scientific atheists to mean the same thing) and Dawkin's self described himself as an agnostic atheist on his recent "Fresh Air" interview. I've read a few, but never met any big A atheists. I find their point of view as irrational as any godder's.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-79514197282488774682007-04-02T17:56:00.000+10:002007-04-02T17:56:00.000+10:00My one question is, how do you know that there are...<I>My one question is, how do you know that there aren't people who identify as agnostics who genuinely are wishy-washy fence-sitters?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't. I've just never met one. But I do entertain the probability that they exist. Just not a 50/50 one. :-)<BR/><BR/><I>I mean, I would admit that there do exist "fundamentalist atheists," at least metaphorically. I just think that the number of such people is exaggerated, and their actual positions caricatured.</I><BR/><BR/>I used to like the term "fundamentalist atheist."<BR/><BR/>I don't anymore. Oh look, I agree that certain stereotypes can be applied to atheists as well, its just that agnostics appear to be represented by a much smaller group than theists or atheists, and as such, I'm not sure if we're well represented enough for such stereotypes to be presented.<BR/><BR/>I tend to apply what I've learnt about atheism from the atheist blogs that I read - are they stereotypes? I'm not sure that they'd agree. Then again, I don't think it's a representative sample, either.<BR/><BR/><I>Similarly, I suspect there are at least a small number of "agnostics" who really do think God's existence is likely. But they're probably not as bad or as common as Dawkins thinks.</I><BR/><BR/>Agree on both points.<BR/><BR/><I>Then there are agnostics like yourself who have trivial disagreements with atheists, who in turn have trivial disagreements with Atheists. If the major argument is about semantics, I think it's trivial. </I><BR/><BR/>Agree with this, except that I don't think that the argument is semantic. It most certainly is trivial, though.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, I do know atheists who understand agnosticism - but they appear to be very much in the minority, and almost without exception appear to be large-a atheists.Dikkiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07897381809885423712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-56945932035566655442007-04-02T14:43:00.000+10:002007-04-02T14:43:00.000+10:00My one question is, how do you know that there are...My one question is, how do you know that there aren't people who identify as agnostics who genuinely are wishy-washy fence-sitters?<BR/><BR/>I mean, I would admit that there do exist "fundamentalist atheists," at least metaphorically. I just think that the number of such people is exaggerated, and their actual positions caricatured.<BR/><BR/>Similarly, I suspect there are at least a small number of "agnostics" who really do think God's existence is likely. But they're probably not as bad or as common as Dawkins thinks.<BR/><BR/>Then there are agnostics like yourself who have trivial disagreements with atheists, who in turn have trivial disagreements with Atheists. If the major argument is about semantics, I think it's trivial.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-17621783900142414092007-03-26T01:07:00.000+10:002007-03-26T01:07:00.000+10:00Ted, it seems odd to me, as well.Mind you, I've on...Ted, it seems odd to me, as well.<BR/><BR/>Mind you, I've only heard a few derogatory comments from atheists about agnostics.<BR/><BR/>It's just a shame that Dawkins had to be one of them.Dikkiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07897381809885423712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-89389058395329116492007-03-23T15:45:00.000+11:002007-03-23T15:45:00.000+11:00Dikkii: And, have I just alienated my entire reade...Dikkii: <I>And, have I just alienated my entire readership, given that most of them are atheist and quite a lot of atheists will not countenance any type of criticism of Dawkins?</I><BR/><BR/>I'm hoping you've set the scene for a good discussion actually. As you know, I'm of the "I'll believe it when I see it" school of thought and I'm not sure if that makes me a "pants wetting fence sitter" or not. But it does seem odd to me that the two groups get stuck into each other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-42372143715890764602007-03-22T00:21:00.000+11:002007-03-22T00:21:00.000+11:00Ted, don't get me wrong, I do love Dawkins, and I ...Ted, don't get me wrong, I do love Dawkins, and I will normally side with atheists in a good stoush with theists, but he frustrates the hell out of me sometimes.<BR/><BR/>I got the general impression from reading his work that his mind works in a very similar way to the Sagan-esque model agnostic.<BR/><BR/>But he would be the first to admit that he would have a seriously hard time self-identifying as such.<BR/><BR/>Is Dawkins stream of <B>velvet-coated ridicule</B> which he directs at agnostics a form of self-loathing? Or have I just read too much into this?<BR/><BR/>Are agnostics <B>really</B> viewed as pants-wetting fence-sitters by atheists?<BR/><BR/>And, have I just alienated my entire readership, given that most of them are atheist and quite a lot of atheists will not countenance any type of criticism of Dawkins?Dikkiihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07897381809885423712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7115935.post-35891374062613296272007-03-21T20:56:00.000+11:002007-03-21T20:56:00.000+11:00Settle down Dikkii, I've barely had a chance to ge...Settle down Dikkii, I've barely had a chance to get through this one, and you've ripped out another already...:)<BR/><BR/>Very nicely done, as usual. I haven't read it myself as yet, but you make some interesting points. At times it seems to me at times that the agnostic/atheist debate is almost as heated as the theist/atheist debate.<BR/><BR/>That surprises me because even people like Dawkins, should god come down and hand out a bit of smiting, would soon change their minds about whether god exists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com