Really? I would consider someone who believes in a God but concedes there is no proof and relies on faith alone to be a very religious person. That's all agnosticism is. It makes no judgment on belief, only on proof, so you need another word in there to qualify what exactly is meant. "Agnosticism" by itself is very vague and honestly very useless as far as a label is concerned because despite being an "agnostic" you can still fall on a very wide spectrum with atheism on one side and theism on the other.
If you think that my vocabulary is nonsense then you deny that religious people are capable of realizing they have no proof for their God? Or do you deny the definition of agnosticism as I understand it, which says there is no way to prove or disprove a God or Gods.
Someone who believes in God isn't agnostic. Proof or no proof, they're not agnostic.
Agnosticism isn't a belief in a lack of proof, it's a lack of belief one way or the other.
I never said that agnosticism is a belief in a lack of proof. Every time I have defined agnosticism I have been careful not to use that word when defining it. Agnosticism's definition has nothing to do with belief, in a God or Gods or otherwise. Its definition is restricted only to whether or not a God or Gods can be proven or disproven.
Tell me how this sentence, "I believe in God but I concede that there is no way to prove or disprove this God [note: this is faith]," is illogical. Agnosticism does not say anything about belief in a God or Gods. You can still fill that part in yourself and there won't be a contradiction.
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Words fucking mean things. Specific things. And in this case, not the things you think they mean.
You are not any fun at all. Don't quote the dictionary at me.
You must realize that people of faith (in this instance Christianity), if they're cognizant at all about the nature of their religion, regard their God as unknowable and worship this entity anyway. I consider these people the most honest of anyone who believes in the existence of a God because they understand that it's faith and that there is no proving God's existence. Reasonable theists are agnostics, by your definition.
Ah, I see you are right in that I skimmed too much of his post. Sad, as it was a small post.
I guess my beef comes in the implication that sociopaths are not part of human evolution. What makes a human that is a sociopath less human than one that is not? I do not believe that we are all "god's creation", but I also do not believe that that standard completely empathetic human is the expected norm. Just a convenient one, and a nicety.
I didn't mean to imply sociopaths weren't human. I don't know where you got that I thought they aren't products of human evolution.
There's just something wrong with them so they do not internally experience empathy. Sort of like how some people cannot experience sight, or have dyslexia, though we don't know if psychopathy is purely genetic or if it's also environmentally induced (doubtful it's just genetic. Also I'm not really clear what the difference between psychopaths and sociopaths is or if there is one.)
They may be human, but broken ones, then? Why is that considered broken? Especially since it is highly beneficial to be able to ``game'' many situations. That lovely economics study that shows the old folks that get visits from their children likely have multiple children and an inheritance. Lacking those two things, guess what, suddenly your normally empathetic children are likely to not visit that often.
I find it much more likely that the normal is fairly non-empathetic, when it comes down to it.
You, my friend, have breached the subject of ethics, and a really hard question to answer: "why be moral?"
Speaking in terms of efficiency, sociopaths have an advantage in that empathy and sympathy don't play a role in their decisions, logical or otherwise. People just don't like the idea that people exist who cannot emotionally connect to somebody else, no matter the situation.
But, the point is, all faith is "belief despite a lack of evidence". That defines faith, as a word. Not just religious faith, or theistic faith. All faith. It is how we, as English-speaking folk, use the term in general. Faith is belief despite not knowing with provable certainty that a thing is true or an event will happen.
But there is a position now that states that God is provable via physical evidence. I think that's a completely ridiculous notion, as do most people here (I think), so I want to make it clear that I'm not in that camp.
But if you were to ask me, "If someone walks up to you and asks you what your religious views are, how do you respond?" I will not say "by telling them I'm an agnostic theist." As far as I'm concerned, it's not important.
So, by saying you are an Agnostic Theist you are doing what, exactly? Trying to separate yourself from people who make the notion (which I agree, is ludicrous) that "God" is something they can prove?
So, by saying you are an Agnostic Theist you are trying to say "I'm a Theist, but I'm not one of those Theists. I'm not a pushy jerk-off who hates science! Honest!"
Admirable, I guess, but I don't think "Agnostic Theist" really conveys that message the way you might hope it does.
They may be human, but broken ones, then? Why is that considered broken? Especially since it is highly beneficial to be able to ``game'' many situations. That lovely economics study that shows the old folks that get visits from their children likely have multiple children and an inheritance. Lacking those two things, guess what, suddenly your normally empathetic children are likely to not visit that often.
I find it much more likely that the normal is fairly non-empathetic, when it comes down to it.
There's a difference between being incapable of feeling empathy and putting something out of mind so you don't feel empathy in a given moment.
But, the point is, all faith is "belief despite a lack of evidence". That defines faith, as a word. Not just religious faith, or theistic faith. All faith. It is how we, as English-speaking folk, use the term in general. Faith is belief despite not knowing with provable certainty that a thing is true or an event will happen.
But there is a position now that states that God is provable via physical evidence. I think that's a completely ridiculous notion, as do most people here (I think), so I want to make it clear that I'm not in that camp.
But if you were to ask me, "If someone walks up to you and asks you what your religious views are, how do you respond?" I will not say "by telling them I'm an agnostic theist." As far as I'm concerned, it's not important.
So, by saying you are an Agnostic Theist you are doing what, exactly? Trying to separate yourself from people who make the notion (which I agree, is ludicrous) that "God" is something they can prove?
So, by saying you are an Agnostic Theist you are trying to say "I'm a Theist, but I'm not one of those Theists. I'm not a pushy jerk-off who hates science! Honest!"
Admirable, I guess, but I don't think "Agnostic Theist" really conveys that message the way you might hope it does.
I'm not saying anything, because I don't say anything. More than half of my friends don't know where I stand on religion at all. But, if I were to categorize it, that's how I would.
EDIT: Or, rather, would have. Frankly I don't ever plan to, but that was my understanding of the word agnostic.
You must realize that people of faith (in this instance Christianity), if they're cognizant at all about the nature of their religion, regard their God as unknowable and worship this entity anyway. I consider these people the most honest of anyone who believes in the existence of a God because they understand that it's faith and that there is no proving God's existence. Reasonable theists are agnostics, by your definition.
I'm going to say this again, slowly.
Your definition of agnosticism is the only one in the english language that I have ever encountered that assumes a belief in the absolute existence of a God. There's a reason for that; using the term agnostic to qualify someone who is a believer robs the term of any value whatsoever.
Being able to prove something has nothing to do with being able to believe in it. Believing is the only thing the term agnostic cares about.
I don't disagree with that. My question is what makes that standard deviation ``normal?'' Why do we value that above all else? Personal gain is well and good, but if the system is ``gamable,'' how can you possibly fault the people that do so?
Because they fuck it up for the rest of us!
And this is the way it is because propensity to altruism is very evolutionarily valuable. You can model it with game theory. Cooperating prisoners score more points on average, over time, than prisoners who constantly try to fuck each other over to get ahead. So, evolution has favored primate brains that reward altruistic behavior.
Haven't studies shown that altruism is not quite the norm that people have tried to say it is for a while, now?
Recommended Reading: Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology by Robert Wright
TL: DR
The most important aspect is either being altruistic or maintaining the appearance of altruism or a mixture of both which is what most normal people do.
I don't disagree with that. My question is what makes that standard deviation ``normal?'' Why do we value that above all else? Personal gain is well and good, but if the system is ``gamable,'' how can you possibly fault the people that do so?
Because they fuck it up for the rest of us!
And this is the way it is because propensity to altruism is very evolutionarily valuable. You can model it with game theory. Cooperating prisoners score more points on average, over time, than prisoners who constantly try to fuck each other over to get ahead. So, evolution has favored primate brains that reward altruistic behavior.
Haven't studies shown that altruism is not quite the norm that people have tried to say it is for a while, now?
Recommended Reading: Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology by Robert Wright
TL: DR
The most important aspect is either being altruistic or maintaining the appearance of altruism or a mixture of both which is what most normal people do.
As an aside- Qingu recommended me that book. I am reading it now, and REALLY REALLY dislike it. Take this book with a grain of salt.
| Zinnar on most things | Avatar by Blameless Cleric
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
Pony I think using the term 'agnostic theist' is potentially useful because unfortunately there are people who believe in a God or Gods who do think they are capable of proving that God's existence or at least they think they know their God exists. The word 'faith' is often misused by people who obviously have no faith at all. To use the term 'agnostic theist' is to make it clear that you understand that faith is involved and nothing is knowable.
None of this is perfect, and your posts have made that very obvious which I am thankful for because I have to fine-tune my own thoughts on this topic.
Sure, I've created stuff. Perhaps we create differently. I tend to be very intentional about my creations. When I want to build stuff with LEGO bricks for example, I don't start putting pieces together and then decide whether it's going to be a castle or a robot, I have that in mind at the outset.
Yeah Qingu, I really really dislike that analogy.
How did your mind arrive at the ideal form which you want to build?
My basic point was that "intelligent design" by humans is still very much a process—whether it's exact or wandering. That process is governed by natural laws, and is itself a natural phenomenon.
That 'basic point' was very far removed (at least to me) from what you actually said.
My mind arrived at the ideal by having an idea, and seeing what worked to make a specific design. That is different from a 'blind' process like evolution wherein the design grows out of what does and doesn't work.
There is a subtle, yet powerful, difference.
Sure, but walk it backwards through evolution and the gradual complexity additions of animal brains and I think the difference will become muddled.
Qingu on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
I think it's important if a person is going to say things like "I am an agnostic" or "I am a theist" or whatever in this here thread... it might be a good idea to follow up that label usage with an explanation of what you mean by that.
Assuming other people understand your usage of these terms is sorta dumb and just creates confusion. It's not like saying "I like apple pie!" where everybody knows what I mean by "apple pie".
They are highly contentious, controversial terms that do have dictionary definitions but that generally doesn't make an iota of difference to how they are used on an everyday basis.
Start from there, and then you could have a more meaningful conversation instead of constantly having semantical arguments over who is using which word the right way.
Given the fact that this entire thread is debating labels which are the component of a personal identity identification and thus have a usage/importance/application beyond simply their definitional/scientific/whatever component, I give this post a :^:
You must realize that people of faith (in this instance Christianity), if they're cognizant at all about the nature of their religion, regard their God as unknowable and worship this entity anyway. I consider these people the most honest of anyone who believes in the existence of a God because they understand that it's faith and that there is no proving God's existence. Reasonable theists are agnostics, by your definition.
I'm going to say this again, slowly.
Your definition of agnosticism is the only one in the english language that I have ever encountered that assumes a belief in the absolute existence of a God. There's a reason for that; using the term agnostic to qualify someone who is a believer robs the term of any value whatsoever.
Being able to prove something has nothing to do with being able to believe in it. Believing is the only thing the term agnostic cares about.
Actually you misunderstand me. I am only using that as one example. Of course there can also be agnostic atheists, I tried to make that clear with my very first post in this thread. Agnosticism does not automatically mean you believe in a God or Gods and I am sorry if you understood me to be saying that because that was not my intention.
Ah, I see you are right in that I skimmed too much of his post. Sad, as it was a small post.
I guess my beef comes in the implication that sociopaths are not part of human evolution. What makes a human that is a sociopath less human than one that is not? I do not believe that we are all "god's creation", but I also do not believe that that standard completely empathetic human is the expected norm. Just a convenient one, and a nicety.
I didn't mean to imply sociopaths weren't human. I don't know where you got that I thought they aren't products of human evolution.
There's just something wrong with them so they do not internally experience empathy. Sort of like how some people cannot experience sight, or have dyslexia, though we don't know if psychopathy is purely genetic or if it's also environmentally induced (doubtful it's just genetic. Also I'm not really clear what the difference between psychopaths and sociopaths is or if there is one.)
They may be human, but broken ones, then? Why is that considered broken? Especially since it is highly beneficial to be able to ``game'' many situations. That lovely economics study that shows the old folks that get visits from their children likely have multiple children and an inheritance. Lacking those two things, guess what, suddenly your normally empathetic children are likely to not visit that often.
I find it much more likely that the normal is fairly non-empathetic, when it comes down to it.
Actually, it's more like people are capable of empathy and tend to be empathetic, but their sphere or zone of interest is limited.
I believe one thing, but I can't be said to have any knowledge about it. It's speculation, and the arguments I've heard in favor of the proposition are more persuasive to me than the alternatives. That said, I understand that it may in fact not be true, and it's impossible to falsify.
I believe that the universe is very likely a simulation. I do not know the truth of that belief, I only know that I have that belief and believe it to be true. There is a lack of knowledge. Ergo, I am an agnostic theist (or agnostic deist).
Would the designer of the simulation itself be living in a higher simulation? Or would it have evolved through natural processes?
I think it could go either way. As far as I can tell, there needs to be some sort of overarching simulation to contain all the others, like a big Russian nesting doll. But maybe it's Simulation A is simulating Simulation B which is simulating Simulation C which is simulating Simulation A. But that seems crazy. But I don't think my intuitions about that sort of thing can be trusted.
Sure, I've created stuff. Perhaps we create differently. I tend to be very intentional about my creations. When I want to build stuff with LEGO bricks for example, I don't start putting pieces together and then decide whether it's going to be a castle or a robot, I have that in mind at the outset.
Yeah Qingu, I really really dislike that analogy.
How did your mind arrive at the ideal form which you want to build?
My basic point was that "intelligent design" by humans is still very much a process—whether it's exact or wandering. That process is governed by natural laws, and is itself a natural phenomenon.
That 'basic point' was very far removed (at least to me) from what you actually said.
My mind arrived at the ideal by having an idea, and seeing what worked to make a specific design. That is different from a 'blind' process like evolution wherein the design grows out of what does and doesn't work.
There is a subtle, yet powerful, difference.
Sure, but walk it backwards through evolution and the gradual complexity additions of animal brains and I think the difference will become muddled.
No, again. The difference will become muddled only because you are looking at evolution incorrectly.
You are taking "complex animal brains' as a 'finished form'. When someone creates a work of art, or a program, or anything there is an ultimate finished form they wish to achieve. If I am making a LEGO robot, there is an idea in my head of this robot and what it should look like. I may or may not make this final form, depending on a large factor of things, but I am still putting bricks together in increasingly complex ways to get a finished product. Sure, once I finish I can always add or subtract; but these modifications are only done to get my creation closer to the 'perfect form'.
Things that are evolving are different in that there is never an 'end' except for extinction. There is no 'perfectly evolved' organism or, to complete the analogy- no 'finished form'.
I believe one thing, but I can't be said to have any knowledge about it. It's speculation, and the arguments I've heard in favor of the proposition are more persuasive to me than the alternatives. That said, I understand that it may in fact not be true, and it's impossible to falsify.
I believe that the universe is very likely a simulation. I do not know the truth of that belief, I only know that I have that belief and believe it to be true. There is a lack of knowledge. Ergo, I am an agnostic theist (or agnostic deist).
Would the designer of the simulation itself be living in a higher simulation? Or would it have evolved through natural processes?
I think it could go either way. As far as I can tell, there needs to be some sort of overarching simulation to contain all the others, like a big Russian nesting doll. But maybe it's Simulation A is simulating Simulation B which is simulating Simulation C which is simulating Simulation A. But that seems crazy. But I don't think my intuitions about that sort of thing can be trusted.
So it's the cosmological argument revisited, except instead of movers, you're positing a chain of simulators, of which there must be a "first simulator."
I really just think the concept of emergence explains this better—that complex stuff (including intelligence and consciousness) emerges through the natural interaction of simpler stuff.
Wait, why is proving the existence of God a ludicrous notion (assuming God exists)?
You're assuming God exists, first of all. But God could exist outside of any religion we know of. God could be the reason for the Big Bang and nothing else. God could be everything. You're trying to prove a very vague concept exists, and that's impossible.
Zombiemambo on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
I don't disagree with that. My question is what makes that standard deviation ``normal?'' Why do we value that above all else? Personal gain is well and good, but if the system is ``gamable,'' how can you possibly fault the people that do so?
Because they fuck it up for the rest of us!
And this is the way it is because propensity to altruism is very evolutionarily valuable. You can model it with game theory. Cooperating prisoners score more points on average, over time, than prisoners who constantly try to fuck each other over to get ahead. So, evolution has favored primate brains that reward altruistic behavior.
Haven't studies shown that altruism is not quite the norm that people have tried to say it is for a while, now?
Recommended Reading: Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology by Robert Wright
TL: DR
The most important aspect is either being altruistic or maintaining the appearance of altruism or a mixture of both which is what most normal people do.
Sure, I've created stuff. Perhaps we create differently. I tend to be very intentional about my creations. When I want to build stuff with LEGO bricks for example, I don't start putting pieces together and then decide whether it's going to be a castle or a robot, I have that in mind at the outset.
Yeah Qingu, I really really dislike that analogy.
How did your mind arrive at the ideal form which you want to build?
My basic point was that "intelligent design" by humans is still very much a process—whether it's exact or wandering. That process is governed by natural laws, and is itself a natural phenomenon.
I suppose if you consider the thought process a part of creation you might have a point, but I would draw a distinction between what you want to create and the creation/finished product. One is potential, one is actual. They are connected in a sense, but I don't think it's a useful sense to consider in the context that we are discussing.
Wait, why is proving the existence of God a ludicrous notion (assuming God exists)?
Mostly because it's been tried over and over again with no result, for various deities.
Actually the result has always been, there is no god.
Saying with 100% certainty that there is no God is almost as foolish as saying with 100% certainty that there is. How do you know? How can you know? The best answer I've found from atheism is that there isn't sufficient reason to believe a God exists. It's not impossible, though. God could be anything.
You must realize that people of faith (in this instance Christianity), if they're cognizant at all about the nature of their religion, regard their God as unknowable and worship this entity anyway. I consider these people the most honest of anyone who believes in the existence of a God because they understand that it's faith and that there is no proving God's existence. Reasonable theists are agnostics, by your definition.
I'm going to say this again, slowly.
Your definition of agnosticism is the only one in the english language that I have ever encountered that assumes a belief in the absolute existence of a God. There's a reason for that; using the term agnostic to qualify someone who is a believer robs the term of any value whatsoever.
Being able to prove something has nothing to do with being able to believe in it. Believing is the only thing the term agnostic cares about.
Actually you misunderstand me. I am only using that as one example. Of course there can also be agnostic atheists, I tried to make that clear with my very first post in this thread. Agnosticism does not automatically mean you believe in a God or Gods and I am sorry if you understood me to be saying that because that was not my intention.
We started this conversation with you telling me I could not, in fact, be agnostic in the terms I was using because belief was a binary thing. You have spent the rest of it explaining to me that people who do believe in God are potentially agnostic.
Are you completely dislodging the term from any statement of belief in God whatsoever?
If I'm going to need to start throwing things you've said out of the conversation, it would be nice to let me know ahead of time so I can properly perforate my notes.
You, my friend, have breached the subject of ethics, and a really hard question to answer: "why be moral?"
Speaking in terms of efficiency, sociopaths have an advantage in that empathy and sympathy don't play a role in their decisions, logical or otherwise. People just don't like the idea that people exist who cannot emotionally connect to somebody else, no matter the situation.
I didn't realize it was a completely removed question. That is, essentially, the heart of what I don't understand about a lot of people. I can easily understand the answer of those that identify as religious. They have a lot of religious indoctrination to ``be moral.'' I do not understand other people's answer. I would be interested in seeing people more capable than myself explore that question.
taeric on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Wait, why is proving the existence of God a ludicrous notion (assuming God exists)?
At least in Christianity God is an unknowable entity whose existence rests on faith alone. His very nature precludes scientific proof of his existence. Of course philosophers are free to tease him out of hiding with their own methods but I don't think that's what you're talking about? Regardless, I am personally not interested in whether a philosopher can claim they have proven the existence of God.
Pony I think using the term 'agnostic theist' is potentially useful because unfortunately there are people who believe in a God or Gods who do think they are capable of proving that God's existence or at least they think they know their God exists. The word 'faith' is often misused by people who obviously have no faith at all. To use the term 'agnostic theist' is to make it clear that you understand that faith is involved and nothing is knowable.
None of this is perfect, and your posts have made that very obvious which I am thankful for because I have to fine-tune my own thoughts on this topic.
I totally understand the need to separate one's own beliefs from those of others when you see those others using a term that applies to you as well to mean things you don't believe.
I understand that, for a theist, watching someone like Ray Comfort go on about how a banana proves the existence of God can be mortifying and make you face-palm like Picard.
I understand the reluctance to simply say something like "I'm a theist!" because you don't want to be lumped in with those people and you want to make it clear that your faith is founded on belief and you don't claim to be able to prove these things to yourself or anyone else.
This is all understandable, even admirable.
I just don't think appropriating the term "Agnostic" accurately conveys what you are trying to do there.
I myself have this sort of very same problem. I sometimes refer to myself as religious, because it is my opinion that my practices and beliefs are accurately conveyed by what the term religious correctly means. Nonetheless, I am careful in using that term because I know that some people have come to identify that term with A) Christianity exclusively, and take it to mean I am a Christian (I'm not), or Theism (under the assumption all religions are theistic, which they are not) or C) That I'm a pushy asshole about it and I'm going to be all judging them and shit (which I'm not).
Why?
Because their experience with self-identified religious people has given them that association with the term.
This is unfortunate, but that's just how language is. I can choose to fight that directly, I can choose to completely relent to it and never refer to myself as religious, or I can be careful in how I use the word and make a point of elaborating further if I see a person has a reaction based on misunderstanding.
Wait, why is proving the existence of God a ludicrous notion (assuming God exists)?
You're assuming God exists, first of all. But God could exist outside of any religion we know of. God could be the reason for the Big Bang and nothing else. God could be everything. You're trying to prove a very vague concept exists, and that's impossible.
Only if you dilute it to a vague concept. I would say "the cause of the big bang and nothing else" is not God. Physics, for example, despite what many of my former classmates might believe, is not God.
You, my friend, have breached the subject of ethics, and a really hard question to answer: "why be moral?"
Speaking in terms of efficiency, sociopaths have an advantage in that empathy and sympathy don't play a role in their decisions, logical or otherwise. People just don't like the idea that people exist who cannot emotionally connect to somebody else, no matter the situation.
I didn't realize it was a completely removed question. That is, essentially, the heart of what I don't understand about a lot of people. I can easily understand the answer of those that identify as religious. They have a lot of religious indoctrination to ``be moral.'' I do not understand other people's answer. I would be interested in seeing people more capable than myself explore that question.
From what little I've read on it, all I can say is "there is no reason to be moral if you are not already motivated to be moral."
No, again. The difference will become muddled only because you are looking at evolution incorrectly.
You are taking "complex animal brains' as a 'finished form'. When someone creates a work of art, or a program, or anything there is an ultimate finished form they wish to achieve. If I am making a LEGO robot, there is an idea in my head of this robot and what it should look like. I may or may not make this final form, depending on a large factor of things, but I am still putting bricks together in increasingly complex ways to get a finished product. Sure, once I finish I can always add or subtract; but these modifications are only done to get my creation closer to the 'perfect form'.
Things that are evolving are different in that there is never an 'end' except for extinction. There is no 'perfectly evolved' organism or, to complete the analogy- no 'finished form'.
I think we're talking past each other.
My argument is that, when it comes down to it, the act of intelligent, humanlike creation is a process. That process is rooted in the brain. That process has evolved in ability and complexity over time, from primates with smaller brains. They can create tools through this process but not much else.
Those brains and their intelligent processes, in turn, evolved from simpler brains. And so on, until we're down to brainless things that just move chaotically, and the ones that survive have more kids, and it's natural selection. Natural selection is also a process. Like intelligence, it also can shape matter based on selective pressure. In intelligence, the selective pressures come from ideas (which themselves, arguably, are subject to evolution and ecosystems).
My point is that it's difficult for me to believe that there is this universal humanlike tinkerer who made the universe as a simulation when everything we know about the universe shows that complex forms, complex simulation, even intelligence, emerges naturally out of simpler things. And that our concept of intelligence itself is a fuzzy line, it's just a process or a collection of processes, fundamentally similar to natural processes like evolution.
Wait, why is proving the existence of God a ludicrous notion (assuming God exists)?
You're assuming God exists, first of all. But God could exist outside of any religion we know of. God could be the reason for the Big Bang and nothing else. God could be everything. You're trying to prove a very vague concept exists, and that's impossible.
Only if you dilute it to a vague concept. I would say "the cause of the big bang and nothing else" is not God. Physics, for example, despite what many of my former classmates might believe, is not God.
You, my friend, have breached the subject of ethics, and a really hard question to answer: "why be moral?"
Speaking in terms of efficiency, sociopaths have an advantage in that empathy and sympathy don't play a role in their decisions, logical or otherwise. People just don't like the idea that people exist who cannot emotionally connect to somebody else, no matter the situation.
I didn't realize it was a completely removed question. That is, essentially, the heart of what I don't understand about a lot of people. I can easily understand the answer of those that identify as religious. They have a lot of religious indoctrination to ``be moral.'' I do not understand other people's answer. I would be interested in seeing people more capable than myself explore that question.
From what little I've read on it, all I can say is "there is no reason to be moral if you are not already motivated to be moral."
And this seems to be a controversial statement to the rest of this forum. So, I have to believe there is more to it than that.
Wait, why is proving the existence of God a ludicrous notion (assuming God exists)?
You're assuming God exists, first of all. But God could exist outside of any religion we know of. God could be the reason for the Big Bang and nothing else. God could be everything. You're trying to prove a very vague concept exists, and that's impossible.
Only if you dilute it to a vague concept. I would say "the cause of the big bang and nothing else" is not God. Physics, for example, despite what many of my former classmates might believe, is not God.
Prove it.
No see, it's how we choose to define the word God. If you define God as "something so crazy I don't even know," well no you can't test for that. If you define God, as most religions do, as "a super being that takes interest and interacts with human life" well that gives us a starting point.
I believe one thing, but I can't be said to have any knowledge about it. It's speculation, and the arguments I've heard in favor of the proposition are more persuasive to me than the alternatives. That said, I understand that it may in fact not be true, and it's impossible to falsify.
I believe that the universe is very likely a simulation. I do not know the truth of that belief, I only know that I have that belief and believe it to be true. There is a lack of knowledge. Ergo, I am an agnostic theist (or agnostic deist).
Would the designer of the simulation itself be living in a higher simulation? Or would it have evolved through natural processes?
I think it could go either way. As far as I can tell, there needs to be some sort of overarching simulation to contain all the others, like a big Russian nesting doll. But maybe it's Simulation A is simulating Simulation B which is simulating Simulation C which is simulating Simulation A. But that seems crazy. But I don't think my intuitions about that sort of thing can be trusted.
So it's the cosmological argument revisited, except instead of movers, you're positing a chain of simulators, of which there must be a "first simulator."
I really just think the concept of emergence explains this better—that complex stuff (including intelligence and consciousness) emerges through the natural interaction of simpler stuff.
Yes, it's very similar, except I think it's not insane to say that there's probably an intelligent entity that is to us as we are to, say, the game of Sim Earth or as Tolkien was to Middle Earth, and I think it's more likely (or, more accurate and detailed, as they aren't incompatible) than rote emergence.
Wait, why is proving the existence of God a ludicrous notion (assuming God exists)?
At least in Christianity God is an unknowable entity whose existence rests on faith alone.
This isn't exactly true. He has defined qualities that are testable parameters. Like, for example, he created the earth in six days (the sun on the third), and fashioned the sky as a solid dome to hold up an above-sky ocean.
If this never happened, then the Christian god can't be said to exist. Unless you simply choose to ignore the part of the religion that defines him that way. Which is what Christians do, over and over again, as science gradually erodes the claims about Yahweh's attributes and actions, until what's left is this vague, meaningless, abstract husk of a non-deity with the name "God" still attached.
You, my friend, have breached the subject of ethics, and a really hard question to answer: "why be moral?"
Speaking in terms of efficiency, sociopaths have an advantage in that empathy and sympathy don't play a role in their decisions, logical or otherwise. People just don't like the idea that people exist who cannot emotionally connect to somebody else, no matter the situation.
I didn't realize it was a completely removed question. That is, essentially, the heart of what I don't understand about a lot of people. I can easily understand the answer of those that identify as religious. They have a lot of religious indoctrination to ``be moral.'' I do not understand other people's answer. I would be interested in seeing people more capable than myself explore that question.
From what little I've read on it, all I can say is "there is no reason to be moral if you are not already motivated to be moral."
And this seems to be a controversial statement to the rest of this forum. So, I have to believe there is more to it than that.
There are a lot of defenses, such as we are social animals, and morals help maintain a social structure. If everybody lied, cheated, stole and killed, we would not live in a productive society. However, if everyone was a sociopath, I'm sure some kind of system would work out and society would be just as productive as it is now.
No, again. The difference will become muddled only because you are looking at evolution incorrectly.
You are taking "complex animal brains' as a 'finished form'. When someone creates a work of art, or a program, or anything there is an ultimate finished form they wish to achieve. If I am making a LEGO robot, there is an idea in my head of this robot and what it should look like. I may or may not make this final form, depending on a large factor of things, but I am still putting bricks together in increasingly complex ways to get a finished product. Sure, once I finish I can always add or subtract; but these modifications are only done to get my creation closer to the 'perfect form'.
Things that are evolving are different in that there is never an 'end' except for extinction. There is no 'perfectly evolved' organism or, to complete the analogy- no 'finished form'.
I think we're talking past each other.
My argument is that, when it comes down to it, the act of intelligent, humanlike creation is a process. That process is rooted in the brain. That process has evolved in ability and complexity over time, from primates with smaller brains. They can create tools through this process but not much else.
Those brains and their intelligent processes, in turn, evolved from simpler brains. And so on, until we're down to brainless things that just move chaotically, and the ones that survive have more kids, and it's natural selection. Natural selection is also a process. Like intelligence, it also can shape matter based on selective pressure. In intelligence, the selective pressures come from ideas (which themselves, arguably, are subject to evolution and ecosystems).
My point is that it's difficult for me to believe that there is this universal humanlike tinkerer who made the universe as a simulation when everything we know about the universe shows that complex forms, complex simulation, even intelligence, emerges naturally out of simpler things. And that our concept of intelligence itself is a fuzzy line, it's just a process or a collection of processes, fundamentally similar to natural processes like evolution.
Hmm. We may be. I agree that it is difficult to believe (if not impossible) that there is a humanlike tinkerer who made everything ever amen. But, I think there are far too many differences in the process of guided creation and evolution by natural selection to consider them 'similar' after you get past 'we make changes based on what works and what doesn't". The differences, as I said and tried to elucidate, are subtle and powerful.
Like your mom
I'm sorry I had to; the intellectualism was getting to me
Yes, it's very similar, except I think it's not insane to say that there's probably an intelligent entity that is to us as we are to, say, the game of Sim Earth or as Tolkien was to Middle Earth, and I think it's more likely (or, more accurate and detailed, as they aren't incompatible) than rote emergence.
But it runs into the exact same problem as the cosmological argument.
Where did this deity come from?
If someone simulated him, where did he come from?
If nobody simulated him and he is your arbitrary designation for the "primary reality" then why can't you simply say this shell of reality/simulation is the primary reality?
Also, I think it's ridiculously anthropocentric to assume that this hypothetical simulator's relation to its simulation is congruent with the relation of humans to their creation during the tiny sliver of history that we inhabit, in the tiny sliver of the universe and the spectrum of "intelligence" that we inhabit.
Posts
You are not any fun at all. Don't quote the dictionary at me.
You must realize that people of faith (in this instance Christianity), if they're cognizant at all about the nature of their religion, regard their God as unknowable and worship this entity anyway. I consider these people the most honest of anyone who believes in the existence of a God because they understand that it's faith and that there is no proving God's existence. Reasonable theists are agnostics, by your definition.
You, my friend, have breached the subject of ethics, and a really hard question to answer: "why be moral?"
Speaking in terms of efficiency, sociopaths have an advantage in that empathy and sympathy don't play a role in their decisions, logical or otherwise. People just don't like the idea that people exist who cannot emotionally connect to somebody else, no matter the situation.
So, by saying you are an Agnostic Theist you are doing what, exactly? Trying to separate yourself from people who make the notion (which I agree, is ludicrous) that "God" is something they can prove?
So, by saying you are an Agnostic Theist you are trying to say "I'm a Theist, but I'm not one of those Theists. I'm not a pushy jerk-off who hates science! Honest!"
Admirable, I guess, but I don't think "Agnostic Theist" really conveys that message the way you might hope it does.
There's a difference between being incapable of feeling empathy and putting something out of mind so you don't feel empathy in a given moment.
I'm not saying anything, because I don't say anything. More than half of my friends don't know where I stand on religion at all. But, if I were to categorize it, that's how I would.
EDIT: Or, rather, would have. Frankly I don't ever plan to, but that was my understanding of the word agnostic.
I'm going to say this again, slowly.
Your definition of agnosticism is the only one in the english language that I have ever encountered that assumes a belief in the absolute existence of a God. There's a reason for that; using the term agnostic to qualify someone who is a believer robs the term of any value whatsoever.
Being able to prove something has nothing to do with being able to believe in it. Believing is the only thing the term agnostic cares about.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Recommended Reading:
Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology by Robert Wright
TL: DR
The most important aspect is either being altruistic or maintaining the appearance of altruism or a mixture of both which is what most normal people do.
As an aside- Qingu recommended me that book. I am reading it now, and REALLY REALLY dislike it. Take this book with a grain of salt.
None of this is perfect, and your posts have made that very obvious which I am thankful for because I have to fine-tune my own thoughts on this topic.
Given the fact that this entire thread is debating labels which are the component of a personal identity identification and thus have a usage/importance/application beyond simply their definitional/scientific/whatever component, I give this post a :^:
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Actually you misunderstand me. I am only using that as one example. Of course there can also be agnostic atheists, I tried to make that clear with my very first post in this thread. Agnosticism does not automatically mean you believe in a God or Gods and I am sorry if you understood me to be saying that because that was not my intention.
Actually, it's more like people are capable of empathy and tend to be empathetic, but their sphere or zone of interest is limited.
I think it could go either way. As far as I can tell, there needs to be some sort of overarching simulation to contain all the others, like a big Russian nesting doll. But maybe it's Simulation A is simulating Simulation B which is simulating Simulation C which is simulating Simulation A. But that seems crazy. But I don't think my intuitions about that sort of thing can be trusted.
No, again. The difference will become muddled only because you are looking at evolution incorrectly.
You are taking "complex animal brains' as a 'finished form'. When someone creates a work of art, or a program, or anything there is an ultimate finished form they wish to achieve. If I am making a LEGO robot, there is an idea in my head of this robot and what it should look like. I may or may not make this final form, depending on a large factor of things, but I am still putting bricks together in increasingly complex ways to get a finished product. Sure, once I finish I can always add or subtract; but these modifications are only done to get my creation closer to the 'perfect form'.
Things that are evolving are different in that there is never an 'end' except for extinction. There is no 'perfectly evolved' organism or, to complete the analogy- no 'finished form'.
I really just think the concept of emergence explains this better—that complex stuff (including intelligence and consciousness) emerges through the natural interaction of simpler stuff.
You're assuming God exists, first of all. But God could exist outside of any religion we know of. God could be the reason for the Big Bang and nothing else. God could be everything. You're trying to prove a very vague concept exists, and that's impossible.
Actually the result has always been, there is no god.
So... because it's hard (or unprovable because God does not exist)?
Isn't this what I said?
I suppose if you consider the thought process a part of creation you might have a point, but I would draw a distinction between what you want to create and the creation/finished product. One is potential, one is actual. They are connected in a sense, but I don't think it's a useful sense to consider in the context that we are discussing.
Saying with 100% certainty that there is no God is almost as foolish as saying with 100% certainty that there is. How do you know? How can you know? The best answer I've found from atheism is that there isn't sufficient reason to believe a God exists. It's not impossible, though. God could be anything.
Are you completely dislodging the term from any statement of belief in God whatsoever?
If I'm going to need to start throwing things you've said out of the conversation, it would be nice to let me know ahead of time so I can properly perforate my notes.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I didn't realize it was a completely removed question. That is, essentially, the heart of what I don't understand about a lot of people. I can easily understand the answer of those that identify as religious. They have a lot of religious indoctrination to ``be moral.'' I do not understand other people's answer. I would be interested in seeing people more capable than myself explore that question.
At least in Christianity God is an unknowable entity whose existence rests on faith alone. His very nature precludes scientific proof of his existence. Of course philosophers are free to tease him out of hiding with their own methods but I don't think that's what you're talking about? Regardless, I am personally not interested in whether a philosopher can claim they have proven the existence of God.
I totally understand the need to separate one's own beliefs from those of others when you see those others using a term that applies to you as well to mean things you don't believe.
I understand that, for a theist, watching someone like Ray Comfort go on about how a banana proves the existence of God can be mortifying and make you face-palm like Picard.
I understand the reluctance to simply say something like "I'm a theist!" because you don't want to be lumped in with those people and you want to make it clear that your faith is founded on belief and you don't claim to be able to prove these things to yourself or anyone else.
This is all understandable, even admirable.
I just don't think appropriating the term "Agnostic" accurately conveys what you are trying to do there.
I myself have this sort of very same problem. I sometimes refer to myself as religious, because it is my opinion that my practices and beliefs are accurately conveyed by what the term religious correctly means. Nonetheless, I am careful in using that term because I know that some people have come to identify that term with A) Christianity exclusively, and take it to mean I am a Christian (I'm not), or
Why?
Because their experience with self-identified religious people has given them that association with the term.
This is unfortunate, but that's just how language is. I can choose to fight that directly, I can choose to completely relent to it and never refer to myself as religious, or I can be careful in how I use the word and make a point of elaborating further if I see a person has a reaction based on misunderstanding.
Only if you dilute it to a vague concept. I would say "the cause of the big bang and nothing else" is not God. Physics, for example, despite what many of my former classmates might believe, is not God.
From what little I've read on it, all I can say is "there is no reason to be moral if you are not already motivated to be moral."
My argument is that, when it comes down to it, the act of intelligent, humanlike creation is a process. That process is rooted in the brain. That process has evolved in ability and complexity over time, from primates with smaller brains. They can create tools through this process but not much else.
Those brains and their intelligent processes, in turn, evolved from simpler brains. And so on, until we're down to brainless things that just move chaotically, and the ones that survive have more kids, and it's natural selection. Natural selection is also a process. Like intelligence, it also can shape matter based on selective pressure. In intelligence, the selective pressures come from ideas (which themselves, arguably, are subject to evolution and ecosystems).
My point is that it's difficult for me to believe that there is this universal humanlike tinkerer who made the universe as a simulation when everything we know about the universe shows that complex forms, complex simulation, even intelligence, emerges naturally out of simpler things. And that our concept of intelligence itself is a fuzzy line, it's just a process or a collection of processes, fundamentally similar to natural processes like evolution.
Prove it.
And this seems to be a controversial statement to the rest of this forum. So, I have to believe there is more to it than that.
No see, it's how we choose to define the word God. If you define God as "something so crazy I don't even know," well no you can't test for that. If you define God, as most religions do, as "a super being that takes interest and interacts with human life" well that gives us a starting point.
Yes, it's very similar, except I think it's not insane to say that there's probably an intelligent entity that is to us as we are to, say, the game of Sim Earth or as Tolkien was to Middle Earth, and I think it's more likely (or, more accurate and detailed, as they aren't incompatible) than rote emergence.
If this never happened, then the Christian god can't be said to exist. Unless you simply choose to ignore the part of the religion that defines him that way. Which is what Christians do, over and over again, as science gradually erodes the claims about Yahweh's attributes and actions, until what's left is this vague, meaningless, abstract husk of a non-deity with the name "God" still attached.
There are a lot of defenses, such as we are social animals, and morals help maintain a social structure. If everybody lied, cheated, stole and killed, we would not live in a productive society. However, if everyone was a sociopath, I'm sure some kind of system would work out and society would be just as productive as it is now.
Hmm. We may be. I agree that it is difficult to believe (if not impossible) that there is a humanlike tinkerer who made everything ever amen. But, I think there are far too many differences in the process of guided creation and evolution by natural selection to consider them 'similar' after you get past 'we make changes based on what works and what doesn't". The differences, as I said and tried to elucidate, are subtle and powerful.
Where did this deity come from?
If someone simulated him, where did he come from?
If nobody simulated him and he is your arbitrary designation for the "primary reality" then why can't you simply say this shell of reality/simulation is the primary reality?
Also, I think it's ridiculously anthropocentric to assume that this hypothetical simulator's relation to its simulation is congruent with the relation of humans to their creation during the tiny sliver of history that we inhabit, in the tiny sliver of the universe and the spectrum of "intelligence" that we inhabit.