h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

No, really, kidding aside:
Can you prove beyond any doubt that you are an agnostic?
Can you prove anything beyond anyones/everybodys doubt?
Can "I think, therefore I am" not be transformed into "I think, therefore God is"
Is Freedom From Faith simply another belief?

Well of course the FFFF is a belief. (I will take some liberties now, although I have not been here long! ) As I understand it, we are against _unfounded_ or _misplaced_ belief.

I mean, I believe that my underpants are black, but that is unlikely to rock society to its core. Belief or non-belief in God, on the other hand, touches all of mankind in some way.

Did I get it right?

Lear seems to take the view that a theory nearly proved is 'close enough':

"I mean, how much evidence is necessary before a theory is said to be proved or disproved? Some would say Darwinism hasn't been completely 'proved' yet - but the evidence would seem to be overwhelming..."

Sorry, Lear, I don't think it works like that. It's more like this:

Any theory that adequately explains the facts is acceptable. If more than one theory meets this criterion, then you are free to select the one that appeals most to you - there's no other reason to choose one over another.

If a theory is "proved", then all other competing theories must be false, and the proof must prove this too. Once this has happened, of course, the discussion is over. You have discovered the One and Only Truth...











...and you are no longer entitled to enter the hallowed halls of the FFFF!

Pattern-chaser

If somebody states a theory, he first has to prove it is right, giving the setup of his observations - and then critics can prove he is wrong. Eventually the theory becomes a law.

So if I have the theory that Captain Kirk lives, I'll have to prove that, say where I met him, and you could prove me wrong.

But if some people invent some god, they don't have to prove anything, and if they are asked to, arguments are exchanged until they resort to saying that the ways of the lord are not traceable (bulls**t).

There has to be proof, a simple assumption does not suffice. And that is NOT a faith.

In posting 464, Wonko commented "...if I have the theory that Captain Kirk lives, I'll have to prove that, say where I met him, and you could prove me wrong."

Quite so. If you presented your claim as an objective one, then I can't disagree with what you say. If, however, I state my *belief* that God exists (which I *do* believe, but that isn't necessary for the argument I'm presenting), I'm not making an objective claim. I am merely communicating my belief to you. There is no requirement for proof, nor should there be.

Confusion and contradiction only emerge where a subjective claim is presented as though it was an objective claim. This is a nonsense, and deserves all the ridicule it gets.

-------------------------

Wonko, what did you mean when you wrote "There has to be proof, a simple assumption does not suffice. And that is NOT a faith."? Specifically, what is it that is NOT a faith?

Pattern-chaser

You are right at that. Does belief count as fiction?

"And that is NOT a faith" is a reply to those trying to classify Atheism as a faith. Not believing in unproven things, or to say it the other way round, only to believe in things which are proven, or at least have strong indications to be fully proven sometime, is the normal thing. That's how you react in normal life. No faith.

To believe something without proof is part of having a faith.

I do have a faith. I believe in Humanism. That is, I believe the Evolution of Humanism did bring good things to us, e.g. the Human Rights and I belive it will evolve into something even better.

Wonko asked "Does belief count as fiction?"

Well, a belief *could* be true in all cases, in which case it would be fact. However, fiction can also be true on occasion, even if it's by coincidence, so I don't have a problem equating the two.

Wonko wrote "...to believe in things which are proven [...] is the normal thing. That's how you react in normal life. No faith."

The normal thing for someone who doesn't have faith, you mean? For the rest (the majority?), faith is an integral part of real life. When I see my Mum, surrounded by crucifixes and religious regalia, I realise that she lives in a different world from mine, and faith is *central* to hers. Faith is *present* in my world, but not as prominently.

Wonko said "To believe something without proof is part of having a faith."

You sell yourself short. I think believing something in the absence of proof is a *definition* of faith.

Pattern-chaser

Yeah, yeah, yeah - but what it all comes down to is this old dialogue:

A: How can there be wars, hunger and diseases if there is a god?

B: Were do all the other things come from if there is NOT a god?

In short: Things ARE and s*** happens. Living with that fact may not be easy. But a helluva lot easier than explaining it.

You want proof? Well the existence of this thread should be proof enough.

If not there is the Bible, The Koran and a (vast) numnber of other books - and books about these books - and so on.

Jamie;

Your belief that pants are black can be said to be wrong. The pants don't actually have a colour or shade... light does. The fabric of the "pants" simply reflects light at a wavelength that your senses reconstruct as "black". So while it is meaningful to say that "pants" are "black" in some instances, it is not, in fact, "true" that they are.

I think any belief about anything can be said to be similarly suspect... a commitment to a certain model of reality may yield certain benefits or insights, but that doesn't mean you should confuse the map with the territory.

Pattern-chaser, you got me. "Normal" not not quite an explanation. It's so normal to me to only believe information I am able to verify that I didn't think further.

Information? Verify? Vague concepts. That's where the collective brain power of mankind springs in (like superman entering the scene), struggling for the truth. Hold your breath, you're in the middle of the battle.

Twophlag Gargleblap, nice to see you. You did some adultery, did you? Me too, but it's quite a thrill, especially when it's your neightbur's wife. Good luck!

Exactly, Twophlag. A theory is a simulacrum which offers a working model of reality, or a certain aspect(s) of reality. Some simulacra are less plausible than others, some don't seem to have any engagement with the real world at all - but all of them are open to criticism, and can be revised - may have to be revised - as reality changes and / or perceptions of reality change.

This, I think, is a pragmatic attitude to knowledge which discounts the likelihood of there ever being a "One and Only Truth". But if there ever could be such a thing as a 'One Truth', it is something like the following... 'Truth' changes from one moment to another, from one generation to another, and the best we can do is to constantly keep a watchful eye on our 'truths', to ensure that they are still working properly. They will generally be in need, at least, of a lick or two of paint, and more than likely an MOT, not to mention a complete overhaul.

This is what I was getting at, Pattern-Chaser, in my last posting. I wasn't arguing "a theory nearly proved is close enough." I was arguing against the idea that in order for a theory to be acceptable is has to absolutely unquestionably account for absolutely everything. This, as I understand it, seems to be the agnostic position. MaW (?) was arguing, in the post above mine, that there is no absolute proof for the non-existence of God. I was arguing that it is rational to assume that, while we will (presumably) never know for certain one way or another, God is probably a human construction rather than something which exists independently of our feverish imaginations.

There is no single 'agnostic position.' Agnostics exist in a huge gray area between atheism and theism. There's plenty of room for each and every one of us to have a different reasoning for our position.

Fair enough Fragilis, but I assume there must be some common feature(s) that agnostics in general share, otherwise surely the term would have no meaning at all. Like any other word, it has a variety of usages, and there will always be a degree of slippage in meaning between one person and the next - but, still, there is a dictionary definition of the word which most of those people would be able to (broadly) identify with.

Perhaps I might ask - What's your own personal rationale for agnosticism? Not that it's any of my business...

Fragilis is certainly correct. Agnostics take many forms for many reasons. That's another reason why it suits me. Although it does upset me a bit when I tell people I'm agnostic and the response is "what's that?".

I personally believe (to the irritation of my Theory of Knowledge teacher - who, luckily for him, didn't follow me to University) that it is utterly impossible to prove anything beyond all doubt due to the limitations of our own senses. Because we cannot perceive anything without using them, we cannot be certain we aren't missing something because we can't go to an alternative viewpoint to cross-check. Therefore true knowledge does not exist - it is merely the most firm of our beliefs.

Although I now contradict myself and claim that Mathematical knowledge can be true, because it's all made up anyway.

This seems like a good time to remind Colonel Sellers that should he be interested in updating the link to my entry on Critical Rationalism that he can find the edited version at http://www.h2g2.com/A455924 As edited entries go, I was pretty pleased with how this one turned out, and any of you who haven't seen it, can consider it to be my say on the topic currently being discussed. Curiously enough, I think the editor of this piece was one of the H2G2 Christians... evidence that they aren't all completely braindead, I guess.

Pierce the Pirate wrote:

"Yeah, yeah, yeah - but what it all comes down to is this old dialogue:

A: How can there be wars, hunger and diseases if there is a god?"

Yawn. Let's just assume that I'm God - one of an infinite number of possibilities, I admit, but let's go with it.

Why shouldn't there be wars, hunger and diseases? Just because I created your race of moaners doesn't mean I should hold your hands all the damned time! The diseases are just lifeforms like you, doing what they do. If you're hungry, forage for food. If food is scarce, make war upon those who compete with you for it. Eventually, your numbers will match the amount of food available. What do you expect, miracles?

"B: Were do all the other things come from if there is NOT a god?"

What other things? I created everything; there are no "other things".

"In short: Things ARE and s*** happens. Living with that fact may not be easy. But a helluva lot easier than explaining it."

Yes, life goes on for all lifeforms, until they die. Does moaning give you humans pleasure? You rarely seem to do much else... And why do you try to explain everything? Hasn't it occurred to you that your puny mortal brains just aren't up to second-guessing Me? Do like the Buddha - accept and carry on with your life, that's My advice.

"You want proof? Well the existence of this thread should be proof enough. If not there is the Bible, The Koran and a (vast) number of other books - and books about these books - and so on."

Proof of what? That I exist? Prove that YOU exist first! What does this thread prove? And where do the books come in? You seem to have got quite het up about something. Calm down, and say clearly whatever it is that's bothering you. This is God, signing off.

Pattern-chaser

Lear said >>This is what I was getting at, Pattern-Chaser, in my last posting. I wasn't arguing "a theory nearly proved is close enough." I was arguing against the idea that in order for a theory to be acceptable is has to absolutely unquestionably account for absolutely everything.<<

Oh, I misunderstood. Sorry. For some time now, I've felt that applying 'scientific' or 'objective' standards to theories is far too demanding. The slightest failure to account for everything and the theory is out, gone forever!

In real life, people use rules of thumb, and find them useful if they work more often than they don't! (Obviously, the higher the success rate, the better a rule it is.) Scientists and/or objectivists should learn to chill a bit, IMO, to be less demanding.

In short, I agree with what you're saying, except for the unjustified assumption that your feeling about God (that she's a human construction) is - of those possibilities that exist - the most probable. I see no reason to lean one way or another, no evidence to strengthen or weaken the possibility that God exists, or not. Probably because there is no such evidence. Faith: you've either got it or you haven't!

Pattern-chaser

MaW wrote "I personally believe [...] that it is utterly impossible to prove anything beyond all doubt due to the limitations of our own senses. Because we cannot perceive anything without using them, we cannot be certain we aren't missing something because we can't go to an alternative viewpoint to cross-check. Therefore true knowledge does not exist - it is merely the most firm of our beliefs."

What a wise and perceptive person you are, MaW, to express my own opinions so eloquently!

Pattern-chaser

He-he-he. Nice going Pattern-chaser!

You got me a little wrong, though. Not necessarily your fault. Who cares?

Let's go straight to the sentence "Life is and s*** happens": THIS is what is difficult to explain. And the proof for THAT is the vast number of books (and books on books) on this subject. End of story.

BTW: I DO like the Buddha - hence my keepers title.

"Where should we have lunch?" (D.Adams)

Hi Pierce!

You wrote "Let's go straight to the sentence "Life is and s*** happens": THIS is what is difficult to explain. And the proof for THAT is the vast number of books (and books on books) on this subject. End of story."

Ah, now I understand. (Sorry for being dense!) Perhaps there *is* no explanation; maybe that's just how things are. Maybe the reason for the "vast number of books (and books on books) on this subject" is that they're trying to explain things for which there is no explanation?

Pattern-chaser