Again with Perspective, but more on defending agnosticism

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

You see, I don’t believe I can actually take a stance on agnosticism and tell everyone they should be unsure, to be sure not to sure, would be pointless. But what I would like to throw out is the idea that agnosticism is probably the best perspective to look at ideas and arguments from.

So how do I defend that point?

I simply believe that when someone is religious, every argument that is against religion is seen as a argument they must repudiate in some manner to which satisfies others or themselves. But a critical analysis of what the argument actually is trying to say, or it’s other implications are not taken to heart. What is taken to heart is how can I best get rid of this argument and move on with my belief system.

I believe this also goes the same for Atheism. I have a very devoted atheistic friend who’d practically perform fellatio if Dawkins asked for it. No matter what argument he here’s against atheism, if it’s something he disagrees with he calls it a strawman. He is not bothered with Critically analyzing atheism, but will do so for theism. He is so sure he is right in being atheist that he won’t ever say…“yeah… that is one way atheism lacks I’ll agree” No, never once. And this is a good friend of mine, he’s a great guy, very intelligent. But here again, it’s not an intelligence thing, it’s a perspective thing.

If none of us had not totally made up our mind about whether or not a supernatural being exists of some sort, we would be open to discussion and I believe we would all learn more. Thus, I will further conclude it is the best perspective ‘up to a point’.

And before you attack me let me just say I’m not saying so much you need to not have your mind made up, but that you need to not have it made up when given an argument. I believe it’s very very hard not to be biased when given an argument that opposses our side.

And dont’ get me wrong, I am not saying we need to be totally skeptical, that’s ignorant. Im only saying arguments, beliefs, philopohies, all should be taken seriously and openly. Not shunned at first sight; we should not be prejudice. And from there I believe only greater debating will follow; not just in here but for everywhere. Because lets face it, it’s easy to give an excuse or a defense, but analyzing a certain belief objectively is a whole different story.

2

The problem with your perspective here is that you’re assuming that both sides (say, theism and atheism) are of equal footing, and that the proper stance is to be confused and stuck halfway between them. That’s just an affliction, not a position- if one side or the other is correct, then the fair and right way to see things is from the perspective that ackowledges that fact. If you look at it that way, agnosticism is guarenteed to be the wrong perspective.

 But what is it we'd be learning? Once we learned it, wouldn't we have then 'made up our minds' and not be in that situation anymore? I come to the debate with a belief in God that is plausible, useful, and well-founded. I'm not going to toss it away just because that would be 'fair'. The atheist must[i] move[/i] me, just as I must move them. If atheism moves you somewhat, then yes, the proper position is confusion (what you call agnosticism). 

Well, when we hear an argument that opposes our belief, we [i]ought[/i] to be against it, if we have our belief for any good reason. The argument ought to be considered as fairly as possible, but just the fact of it's existence alone can't be enough to move us to a state of confusion.

I disagree with this too. What’s easy is to criticize, or confess doubt. Defending a system is where the difficult work is.

3

Truly defending is difficult. However you misunderstand my point.

Possibly you misunderstand it because of your religious bias. And this is exactly what I’m discussing. You need to take an argument, look at it objectively. If you find it makes much sense against your belief just conclude you don’t know the answer.

But this is what seems to happen.

Bob the atheist tells John that the Christian God does not exist because of biblical flaws. John tells bob that atheists have no moral anchor.

John replies to bobs argument that he shouldn’t take things out of context, that there is possibly a good explanation to what seems like an error, that it really is not.

Bob tells John that just because someone is an atheist doesn’t mean they can’t have morals.

What has been done here? Excuses have been made, but arguments have not been fully analyzed. Both of these people have not given ‘defenses’.

I don’t believe a person should look at an argument for themself. If you really want to fully understand what someone is trying to say you must look at it through a non religious, not atheistic, perspective. That is all I’m simply saying.

I mean to you uccisore. Every atheist must have a horrible argument because you believe God exists. So you will always be a theist under this perspective even if you are wrong.

Who knows Uccisore, maybe one day you’ll be atheist and realize what it is I’m talking about. Atheists do have some really good reasons for believing what they do. I believe it is a great possibility a higher power exists, but many things in the bible just don’t seem to add up to truth like they used to under my Chrisitan perspective. I never realized how good the argument was until I stepped back away from my bias. Instead of looking for a way out, I looked for a way to understand the argument then follow through disproving or trying to prove it.

4

Club29, I can easily turn all this on it’s head. One can review the threads here and watch your descent from a true believer to someone full of doubt, himself embracing a perspective of agnosticism.

And so, now you’re Preaching the Good Word of doubt, defending confusion, and in your own words, every person who thinks they know something “must have a horrible argument” to you, because you’re locked into your agnostic mode.
In other words, you’re doing exactly what you accuse others of.

Yes indeed! If we want to understand an argument, we can't look at it through John or Bob's perspective, we must look at it through [i]Club29's [/i] new perspective. Convenient! I can't blame you though, I went through an identical period, where I stepped outside my faith, and thought I was in Objective-Land, the guy without a point of view, looking at all the arguments from the outside, ultimate perspective and analyzing them.  The first step to my recovery was realizing that in fact, I was still "stuck in" a particular perspective with it's own particular biases.  The next step was to realize that the perspective I was in wasn't a very good one- the arguments were few and poor.

  Of course they do. Nearly every position on the issues we discuss have experts who have the positions they do for very good reasons. Theists and others are no different. But these people who have all these good reasons, and great arguments, aren't looking at the world from a magical non-perspective, they're simply very good at seeing things from their own. 

  I could name 50 Christian thinkers and bet a stack of money you haven't read one of them.  What you've really done, tell me if I'm lyin', is compare all the wise things atheists here and other places on the interenet say, to what your Mom told you, or your Pastor told you, or whomever told you when you were young, combined with what you are able to figure out on your own.  And now from that lop-sided beating you've taken, you think you have 'perspective'. 
 Do you really think you've come so far, have learned so much, that [i]now[/i] you can see arguments for how good or bad they are, whereas six months ago, you were such a fool?
5

Lol Uccisore. From reading the first couple of sentences I can see you greatly misunderstand what I’m saying. I think it’s because of your belief system bias. You cannot hear me out because you believe theism is fully correct.

I’m not telling anyone to be agnostic about their main belief system. I’m telling people to stop looking at peoples arguments from their perspective and try and objective uninfluential one.

I’m not telling anyone to be unsure Uccisore. I’m telling people to forget their beliefs when hearing someone’s argument.

Almost everyone has good reason to believe what they do. I find many atheistic arguments compelling. I find theism as well. I don’t argue or find a way to argue against Theistic arguments just because I’m agnostic. In fact many of them I fully embrace and always will. I fully embrace that a literal view of genesis is false from what we know of science.

I think I’m in the best position as of now. Even though Anyone in an opposing position can see exactly the same as I do if they take someone’s argument against an opposing belief and look at it objectively. As I do now between atheism and theism.

I’m a weak agnostic. I really don’t know forsure. But I’m definitely smart enough not to say we should be unsure. I want to be sure, but I’m stuck in the middle and right now and I can see the atheists side so much better, but I still hold to many theistic beliefs.

Uccisore I almost find it offensive you think you have me figured out. In no way am I asking for anyone to be confused about what they believe. I’m only asking not to look at what people have to say from your belief system. If you can’t understand that then you are very closed minded, possibly out of your beliefs. But until you can be really credible and give good arguments against peoples beliefs you need to actually understand what they are trying to say. This is where many, many people fail.

6

By the way. Six months ago I don’t see myself as a fool. In fact the only thing that has changed with me is my certainty about God’s existence. I still hold almost every argument the same as I did before. Except I can’t accept what I used to out of, “I believe in God so it’s possible Jesus turns water into wine” I looked for a way out and to move on with my belief because I could not find a suitable answer. I do not believe in doing this anymore.

What I’m doing now is trying to understand where the atheists come from. I know mostly where Theists come from but I’m still listening to them as well.

But now I listen to both, really “listen”.

7

I think Agnosticism needs no defense, in that it is a natural constant.

Ex: I don’t think you have a bannana in your shoe.
I’m agnostic about whether or not there is a bannana in your shoe, because I haven’t looked inside of your shoe, or, you haven’t personally told me that you have a bannana in your shoe.

And a step farther, would be this:
I don’t think God is A, if God has not directly told me “He” is A, and, I have not been able to observe God as A. So I’d naturally be neutral about it. :laughing:

Most of life on earth is agnostic, I bet. :wink:

8

Must be the title that confuses you guys.

Of course I guess I too would have came in a thread like this months ago and said, “You are trying to defend being unsure? That we should be sure about being unsure, Haha.” Because that’s what most people do, jump to conclusions. And I don’t guess I can blame half of you.

Again I’m not telling anyone to be unsure about what they belief. But look at an argument of your opposer without your belief in the way.

Sorta like, You don’t have to root for your home team just because you have the home jersey on, when you know perfectly well the ref made a bad call and the other team was cheated.

9

If this is a reply to my reply, I may add, my only point was:

When babies are born, they don’t think God is or is not.

Neutrality about an un-experienced issue is natural. :wink:

10

Club29

Yeah, I get that. And what I'm telling you is that the only reason you're telling people to do that is because it's what [i]you[/i] are doing, and therefore, you're just as bias as the person telling others to trust the Bible and ignore everything else. You're just saying "Stop doing it your way, do it my way, 'cause my way is best". How do you not see that? Here you tell people what do to, further down you tell me that's what YOU do, towards the bottom you explain why that way is best. 1+1+1 = bias. 
The other thing I'm trying to tell you is that there's no such thing as an 'objective uninfluential' perspective. Again, the reason why you have the perspective you do is right here in black and white for anybody to read- you have been influenced, and your perspective influences you in turn. You are no more or less objective than anyone else can be. It is very good indeed that you listen to other people's arguments, evaluate them, and try to understand them before proclaiming they are right or wrong. But that's a function of understanding and wit, not perspective. There's no such thing as a neutral perspective, and no such thing as a person who sees things from outside their own perspective. 

Case in point. In short, you're telling me [i]you're the man.[/i] Jerry Fallwell tells people he's the man too, as does Dawkins.  I hope you read this part twice, because it's the proof in the pudding:
 If you were [i]really[/i] objective, if you were [i]really[/i] seeing these things from a fair and unbiased point of view, you would realize that claiming to have achieved objectivity because of some crap you read on the internet (including my crap) is laughable.  Don't you know people devote lives to this sort of study? Get degrees? Make careers of writing books and giving speeches? 

 All you would have to do is tell me where I'm wrong, and I'd accept it. What [i]did[/i] you read? What [i]do[/i] you know? I won't press the matter, because I don't want to offend, and I don't expect you to answer this point vocally, [i]but[/i] if the reason you see the atheist's side so much better is because you read what atheists on the internet say, and didn't put the leg-work in to researching the theistic rebuttals, then your objectivity is an illusion.  
   If you need any further proof, this discussion is it:  You and I are discussing something right now. You and I are from different perspectives on this issue we are discussing right now. We disagree. This was a perfect opportunity for you to demonstrate your newfound objectivity.

But you aren’t being objective at all- four times now, you’ve accused me of having clouded judgement because I’m a theist. That’s exactly the same stunt you used to pull on atheists here, back in your unenlightened, unobjective days. Ask them, they’ll tell you.

This I agree with 100%. I doubt I will have any further comment in this thread.

11

Another idea or analogy.

You take two guys. One object.

The object is an apple. It’s dark. The one guy, A. See’s the apple as a orange because he love oranges. The other guy, B. See’s it as a lemon because he loves lemons. In their mind, or situation their used to, they believe what they are seeing is actually true. When both are actually wrong, but they were to lazy to bother to go up and feel the object, or turn on the light to see that it was an apple. Now this in no way can really be used to substitute atheists and theists, for one would probably be correct. But the point is, and only is, that both really haven’t taken the time to see what the object was because of their own influences.

“I don’t want to hear your silly stories about ufo sitings, I don’t believe in ufo’s” A person who’s seen a ufo before will take every story to heart while the other will blow them off as liars or seeing things that werent there.

Is this making any sense at all what I’m trying to say? If I wanted to be atheist, I could be a fully devoted and would just forget all those good arguments against atheism. If I wanted to be theist, I could forget all those good atheistic arguments against theism. This is what I feel happens to most people. And then when they do pick up these arguments, they feel they’ve disproven them with a “perhaps it’s this” "perhaps you are wrong, no, I believe you are wrong because I believe I’m right and anything against my rightness is always wrong. Then of course it will never make sense.

So again before I pass out talking about this long subject. In no way am I asking you to be unsure about what you believe. I’m only saying we could all learn more and argue ‘better’ if we actually looked at arguments without an influential bias.

12

Uccisore. As an Agnostic I’m telling people to look at arguments from an unsure belief system about a higher power. Or let that guard down. I don’t see how I’m making any type of flaw in saying looking at arguments as arguments and not as the atheistic or theistic arguments.

I realize you feel I’m making a double standard argument here but I don’t feel it’s that at all. This doesn’t pertain to ‘everything’.

It’s not so much the fallacious belief that we should not be biased and I’m not being biased by saying so. It’s that there is a struggle of atheist versus theism attacking each other, and the person to best understand is the one who watches where both are coming from.

But whatever, I understand if you disagree. The biggest flaw I see with this is that someday I’d like to make a decision. Because otherwise I’m a strong agnostic. I’d like to make a decision and once I do I guess it should be full throttle. Because either God exists, or he doesnt.

13

Ucci,
You seem to be making the same mistake that I see a lot of faith-based people make: you claim that by saying, “Shit, I dunno” you think that they are automatically saying, “Shit, if I don’t know, it follows that nobody can know!” There is a world of difference between an agnostic and Dawkins/Falwell. Please tell me I am misunderstanding you, because you are smarter than that.

Club,
I’m gonna take a slightly different perspective on the issue. I’m an atheist, just to clarify (again). But . . . But, but, but. What does agnosticism gain you? I’m not saying embrace fundamentalist Christianity because of normative pressures, but it the Club I first saw on ILP seemed like he was integrated into a Christian community. Is the present Club?

I don’t agree with Christianity – but I’m no Buddhist either. I go to Buddhist temple because it is closer to my tradition than anything else available (and it doesn’t conflict). I really do think that community is of vital importance. So, doubt, question: these things are good. But don’t lose touch with one community for nothing. If you became buddhist, or neo-pagan (covens are a community), or a raging socialist (they also have communities), then it would be OK.

So, I guess what I am saying is keep questioning and come to your own conclusions, but spend the time you used to spend in a Church community volunteering somewhere. Do something with that time and energy.

14

I wish I could explain things better.

If this helps, and then I’ll be done.

As many of you know I used to be a strong theist. I believed in God so much, every good theistic belief was fuel to the fire. Every good atheistic belief was just a question I hadn’t found an answer to, but I believed one existed to refute it.

Now I’m at the point where both theist and atheists have great arguments, great points. I cannot fully believe one side or another because they both have great points, almost equal in my eyes. So to fully believe in one side or another you must almost fully believe that opposing side is mislead, give them pity, w/e. I can’t do that. And I do not want to simply commit out of what I want to believe. I’d rather commit to whats actually true. But as I’ve said, I can’t. Now that I’m not theist. Every argument I held against my theism has grown and demands attention so much more, rather than put in the corner.

If I ever am atheist, or Theist. I will know, I will be there, because I made an unbiased decision between the two forces. How great it will be.

Just think. If I ever reach that point. I will listen to people who oppose me, and say I fully understand what you are saying, but look, this is how I took that and found an answer.

Hopefully that day will come. Hopefully a day will come where many of you can understand what Im saying, because I do tend to confuse people. But i’ll be proud when I can understand where people are coming from. Unlike more than half the people in the world today.

15

Thanks. Yeah and I still hold Christian ideals. I just look at atheism and theism like a ying and yang. I wish I could be both, but it’s impossible. Both have great points, and so I really can’t make a decision now. But I do see that both make great points. And different from how I used to be I will not search for every stinking way to try and refute an atheistic argument because I believe atheism is wrong. If I ever do believe to one side again I will say, “its a great point, I agree, I don’t have the answer but it doesn’t make me wrong” Because most of the time I’m a perfectionist and I can’t stand something undone. One thing I do know, the road to come will be very complicated. Even now my thoughts are only getting deeper and deeper, because I hate to settle with uncertainty and the chase for it can be fun.

I always said I’m Christian but I will study all beliefs and such. Fact is that’s almost impossible to see them ‘well’ when your stuck under a belief already.

16

Xunzian

 I might be making a mistake, but it's not that one! I don't think Club29 is saying that nobody can know (though people do!)  I think he's saying that the best way for people [i]to[/i] know is to be an agnostic like him. He might even be [i]right[/i]. My real beef is that he's saying "The answer is to be an agnostic like me" is fundamentally different from saying "The answer is to be an (a)theist like me". 
Other times, though, he doesn't seem to be saying that other people should be an agnostic- in fact, he comes out and says that they shouldn't. In these cases, he seems to be saying that people should stop looking at arguments from their own perspective, and look at them from a neutral, objective perspective (like his) instead.  Since it's impossible to stop looking through one's own perspective, and since there's no such thing as an objective perspective (in a special way that others aren't), this is...impossible squared. 
 Either way, Club29 is saying a heck of a lot more than 'Shit, I dunno!'. He's definitely describing behavior and methodology that he thinks [i]other people[/i] should be taking. 

 Thank you! There is a world of difference between [i]some[/i] agnostics, and a Dawkins/Falwell.  Some people just don't know! And to the extend that we're discussing theism, about which nobody can be certain, it's just a matter of degree- I'm an agnostic to some degree. There are others though, who actively defend a position that [i]nobody can know[/i]- that is, that everybody ought to be an agnostic, because it's the most rational thing to be. Tentative comes to mind as someone whom I'm pretty sure would defend that position. Again, I don't think Club is doing that, exactly.  Truthfully I think what he's doing has evolved since the beginning of the thread- in conclusion it really seems like now he's just pointing out that (a)theists shouldn't reject arguments automatically because they are contrary, but actually look at them first, and try to be objective in that looking. That is something I have no problem with at all- I just don't think it has anything to do with agnosticism.
17

That seems a very reasonable position to me.

Cheers man!

P.S. Always make sure to be aware of your biases – no matter how free of them you think you are

18

Wait … has Club actually turned agnostic, or is he just defending it for sake of argument?

EDIT: Hmmm … very interesting.

I would agree Club, that theists and atheists can both have good arguments. But it doesn’t follow from that that one of them isn’t correct, and that we can be justified in believing one to be correct.

19

Ucci,

I guess I took it as less, “See things through my perspective” and rather as, “Try to see things from other perspectives”. More about overcoming (or at least acknowledging) biases that we all have.

I have a pretty good handle on where my biases lay, and I think you do too. With that in mind, despite rarely agreeing on many major points, we are able to at least understand what the other person’s perspective is.

So, I thought of it more as a remonstration, suggesting that using an agnostic viewpoint can be incredibly helpful in discussion. Especially since most discussions here tend to be between either devote secular humanists or devote theists of some stripe (with wacky Daoists muddying the water in an awkward middle-ground). Agnosticism serves as a balancing point between the more extreme perspectives and, if a member of either extreme viewpoint finds the other’s perspective too alien, then agnosticism is a middle-ground perspective for both sides to try and see through for the sake of understanding.

20

I agree with you Xunzian, about his ultimate goal, and that it’s a good thing to point out, no argument there- I think I’m out of wind on this one. Except…
I think the main problem I’ve having here is that I’m not yet convinced that agnosticism lies ‘between’ theism and atheism, when it’s strong enough to be defined. Agnostics strike me as people who have their own ideas about knowledge and it’s accessibility that (a)theists are not likely to share- it’s more a triangle than a graded line, in my experience.
As you’ve said though, there are people who are just confused, and don’t know which one is right- and we call these people agnostics too. I think that’s where Club29 is right now. I respect his sentiment, but when I look at it closely…are we telling people that becoming confused is a goal? Or that seeing things from the point of view of a confused person is helpful? Maybe I’m just overthinking it.