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

This is in response to Lear, who asked for more info on agnosticism, and my beliefs.

In my opinion, agnosticism simply refers to someone who is unsure whether or not there is a God. That's really all the word means, 'without knowledge.' Agnostics don't need to have *any* rationale behind their opinion. Of course, many do. But people who simply never take the time to think about it and who shrug when you ask them about God are agnostics too.

Perhaps I'm a good case in point. My own rationale has been known to shift from one month to another, as I rethink my position or come to a new understanding. And I've found that my general mood has an impact on my feelings about God. On a more optimistic day, I might give God more the benefit of the doubt. Or perhaps not.

Right now, I feel that God is a distinct improbability that I can't entirely rule out. Maybe, just maybe, God exists but is beyond humanity's meager abilities of perception. I'm not willing to rule it out. But I'm not about to waste my time in silly ceremonies to this imperceivable and likely nonexistent deity either. So there you go.

Way to go, Fragilis!

A lot of people have told me "you gotta believe in something!". All I can say is "why?".

Allright, I "believe" my shorts are black and I "believe" it is unsound to sleep on the freeway - but that is beside the point, right?

Pattern-chaser: "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?"

This may VERY well be the reason - in my humble opinion.

The Colonel takes this opportunity to inform TG that the link for Critical Rationalism had been updated some time ago...

Fragilis: I read an interesting article on a website that suggested that when the term "agnostic" first entered the lexicon, its meaning was, basically, "atheist". It suggested that certain scholars had become afraid of all of the vilification that had been heaped on the word atheist, and so adopted a new word, one that was less confrontational. Of course, over the years, the definition of agnostic has evolved to some degree, so that now atheism and agnosticism are fairly distinct, but it is still worth noting that atheists reside in the Foundation, and theists reside at the xtian community across the way, and those who are theoretically somewhere in between the two extremes find the climate at the Foundation to their enjoyment, as well.

The argument for the similarity is quite closely based on your last statement, Fragilis, when you said: "I feel that God is a distinct improbability that I can't entirely rule out." - This is a fair description of my own belief on the subject. I think that a god is too improbable to be true, so I declare myself an atheist. But that doesn't mean I automatically dismiss any arguments for him. If new arguments surface, I will reconsider them and open up the god question anew. But, for the moment, I just don't think the answer to the god question can be anything but "no." He's just too unlikely.

So, there you go. Fragilis is an atheist, and I am an agnostic.

Or you're both agnostic... your position shows more of a willingness to believe than I'd expect from someone calling themselves atheist, but then again my definition's probably not the same as yours so does it really matter at all?

Pattern-Chaser... I did attempt to justify the assumption about God being a human construction in a post here the other day (457 - http://www.h2g2.com/F32217?thread=66792&post=807861 ) ... Basically I don't think it's too difficult to argue the point. Firstly, one of the major reasons - probably *the* major reason - cited by believers, for their belief, is that they do not want to feel their life is meaningless. They want to feel, in a word, that someone up there loves them. Many people turn to God at times of great crisis, such as the death of a close friend / relative, or their own approaching demise. The idea of death is a pretty difficult one to accept, for most people - I would argue that it perhaps can only really be dealt with by means of metaphor, because the full-on truth is something that few people have the nerve to bear. In fact, it is generally true that when we go through times of crisis we tend to deal with the problem imaginatively. Some turn to psychoanalysis and the 'unconscious'. Some turn to the arts. Some go mad - perhaps the most rational response of all, in a way. And some turn to God. Very human, all of these weaknesses... So... I think my point was reasonable. The most plausible explanation for the existence of (belief in) God is that it expresses a need to find some way of dealing with the unknown, and coming to terms with death and other such unacceptable events of life. In other words, to coin a phrase... People make Gods - not the other way round.

Fragilis... I read somewhere that it is conventional to distinguish between two (broad) categories of agnostic - namely, 'weak' and 'strong'. The former basically amounts to the position that one does not know the existence of God, but that one does not necessarily rule out the possibility of knowing such at some time in the future. The 'strong' position is that it is, quite simply, impossible to know the existence or otherwise of God one way or another. Humankind is by its very nature finite, and therefore not equipped to understand the nature and existence of a being which is (purportedly) both infinite and omnipotent. The first, then, is a relatively straightforward 'I don't know'; the latter, a more philosophically based 'it is (by definition) impossible to know'.

It seems to me that MaW, in his postings, would be arguing something closer to the 'strong' agnostic position, whereas your own position sounds like something closer to 'weak' agnosticism. But I don't want to go imposing a theoretical construct onto other people's views - I'm just suggesting it as an idea. Besides, you might feel, justifiably, that it's a little simplistic to try to condense everything down into two categories anyway.

And I would agree that the most important thing of all is the right to change one's mind from one day to another. I do the same thing. I used to adhere to a view close to the 'strong' agnosticism outlined above, thinking that, on the face of things, it seemed the more substantial of the two varieties of agnosticism, easier to defend in arguments and more resembling a serious philosophical position.

But then I arrived at the old conundrum - in arguing the impossibility of any certain knowledge, the strong agnostic undermines the very ground s/he is arguing upon, because of course - how can they be 'certain' of this? As far as I can see this is, ultimately, no more a logically defensible position than the view that there definitely *is* or *isn't* a God.

MaW inadvertantly illustrates the problem in post 474, when he says, in his/her first breath, "Fragilis is certainly correct," and then goes on to point out that "it is utterly impossible to prove anything beyond all doubt due to the limitations of our own senses." So... let me get this clear - which bit are you certain about, MaW?

It might sound like splitting hairs, but I think the comment illustrates the problem of (strong) agnosticism quite neatly. It seems to me that the agnostic ends up disappearing into linguistic impossibility, when they argue that nothing can ever be proved for certain. How do they know this? How do they think they can use language at all without having some degree of consensus about what words mean & so forth?

It's an old argument, but I've never heard a satisfactory response to it, not even here among the illuminati of the 4F. Which probably means it's completely unanswerable. Maybe...

I'm contradicting myself, Lear. Aren't I allowed to do that? It's one of the things about being agnostic that's so nice. Because I believe it's impossible to know, I can contradict myself all the time and not worry about it! As long as each bit makes sense, it doesn't matter all that much to me. I'm happy with it, and everyone else can like it or lump it as they prefer.

And yes, I am an agnostic of what you call the "strong" persuasion. Or at least I believe that I think I am...

I dunno - a solipsist can happilly use the word "you" even if he thinks that technically no such thing exists. You just change what you mean by "you" so you can carry on talking with everyone else... similarly I'd expect an agnostic to have a somewhat looser definition of "certain", and suchlike.

It's all just words...

Which is half the problem with religion. If there was a less ambiguous way to communicate, perhaps we wouldn't have seen so many religious wars (and other wars) in our history and our present.

Bravo Lucinda for identifying that language is as flexible and subjective as any other method of modelling life, the universe, and everything. I am of the Chomskian notion that language is in some sense a sensory/perception mechanism as much as it is a means of communicating information to others.

It's gratifying to see so much enlightenment in one place. Puts me in mind of that old chinese saying... "Before studying Zen, trees are trees, mountains are mountains, and rivers are rivers. While studying Zen, trees cease being trees, mountains cease being mountains, rivers cease being rivers. After mastering Zen, trees resume being trees, mountains resume being mountains, and rivers resume being rivers."

MaW--

I think Holy Wars are just a part of human nature. It seems that for many, when they hold something dear, they feel a need to disparage other things in the same category that are held dear by others. We see this often in religion, with each side proclaiming louder than the other that THEY have the truth while the other is a falsehood.

We take our emotional posessions (such as religion) as part of our image of self. Its the old grammar school attitude of insulting others to make yourself feel better.

But its just not religion. Notice how fans of N*Sync will have nothing to do with the Backstreet Boys and visa-versa? To me, they both sound the same, but to fans, its something worth fighting over.

Also notice how much energy is wasted with Trekkies disparaging Star Wars?

And my favorite: Operating Systems. Unix vs. Widows vs. MacOS ad infinitum...

Sometimes there is more than one correct answer....

Fortune cookie says: "Communication is illusion. Verbal communication is absurd theater."

Van Morrison sang: "Enlightenment? Don't know what it is"

Personally, I don't believe that wars were ever truly fought over religion.

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure many of the people fighting the wars believed they were doing so for religious reasons. But I think that in the end, the people ordering the wars and running the battlefield were more interested in economic gains than in ethereal ones. Ever notice how many holy lands also happen to be bastions of trade and commerce?

Fragilis, wearing rose-tinted spectacles , thinks that "the people ordering the wars and running the battlefield were more interested in economic gains than in ethereal ones."

I propose an alternate perspective: since our race began to form gangs (societies or tribes), we have had to accept a rule that prevented us from attacking or killing our own gang. Sadly, we have always found this constraint to be *very* irritating.

To regain our right to kill, we have since sought always to identify our fellow humans as belonging to a gang other than our own, as killing *them* is perfectly OK.

Another religion is another gang, as is another nationality, gender, sexual-orientation, skin colour, team supported...

This is not to contadict Fragilis so much as add another parallel (and less pleasant) view. Life is hard, then you die.

Pattern-chaser

I think we can easily both be right, Pattern-chaser.

Using the 'us vs. them' paradigm has always been a highly effective way to motivate men (and now women) to join a fighting force. You don't want 'them' to take 'our' land, do you? You don't want 'them' to prosper while 'we' suffer. You don't think 'they' should control the world, now do you?

I think the masses believe this sort of argument, so it is used often. And yes, religion is one great way to turn a group of people otherwise similar to 'us' into a 'them.'

And, sometimes, to turn off the brains of most of the 'us' people so they do what the powers on high tell them to without making a fuss about it.

I think a lot of people quite like having their brains turned off. It makes their lives easier (in the short run, at least), if they can get someone else in to do the thinking for them. In truth, the argument that religion is a way of repressing the masses and getting them to do the bidding of an elite, is only half the story. The other half is that the masses themselves seem to rather enjoy the whole process of being patronised / abused in this way.

Marx actually came close to getting something right, but he didn't quite have the language in his own day, so let me propose a modern day version of his infamous dictum :- "Religion is the sado-masochism of the masses."

Lear said, "I think a lot of people quite like having their brains turned off". This is true on so many levels.

Individuals think for themselves, but get a lot of individuals together and somehow they become a mob, and for some reason a mob is eaiser to control than an individual. Large groups tend to make humans into sheep.

It kind of turns into an ego-feedback loop. You are surrounded by those just like you convincing yourself that you must be *right*.

Yes indeed! People don't like to be different to the group, so they go along with it whether it's a good idea or not. You are of course right in saying that some people like to have their thinking done for them. However, I don't think that's a particularly good idea myself.

I agree, Zen, that the individual is far more likely to be a creative thinker than the group. Group thinking tends to find it necessary to reduce down to the lowest common denominator, in order to find common points that all members can relate to, and consequently there is always the tendency to reduce down to the kind of 'safe' blandness that we see all around us, and which tends to be so popular with the masses.

But the conundrum is this... In 'separating' off from the mass mentality, the individual inevitably renders him/her self vulnerable to their prejudices. After all, there's nothing the ignorant lumpen love better than to try to destroy someone who tries to stand apart from them. In other words, one risks becoming a 'them' to the general 'us', if that makes sense.

And consequently the temptation is always there to look for other like-minded people to group together with, simply for the sense of 'safety in numbers' that this can bring. After all, I suppose that's something like what we're all doing here, in a way. Or is it?