Theism, of course isn’t rational. But neither is agnosticism.
I used to be agnostic, I would use the word because I believed I really couldn’t know if the god myth was true or not, even though I didn’t lend it any credibility. Then I got to thinking.
What IS any theology, if not a guess? In order for one form of theology to be any more credible than another, it must have reasonable evidenciary backing. Since no theology present’s any real evidenciary backing, they all sit on the same level playing feild. Guesses.
There are probably thousands of ‘theologies’ that have and are being practiced and all of them wildly different in their creation myths and moral codes. (although most share some basic humanistic behavior qualities)
But being that each theology is no more than a guess, what makes existing theologies any more valid than ones that do not exist?(in fact, the lack of evidenciary backing despite extensive searches makes existing theologies LESS likely to be true than non existing ones) How many possible theological myths can the universe hold?
Infinite.
So what are the chances of any one being correct? About one in googleplex.
Is it rational to put any real weight or credibility in any one theological school of thought or practice? No. Is it rational to put any credibility into all of them combined? no, not really because they are just several thousand guesses out of infinite guesses.
Agnostic means;“not knowing if there is a god”, (by todays common definition anyway), and being that “god” is just one guess, agnosticism is nearly as irational as the theism itself.
The value of any given ‘theology’ lies in the background ((con)textual and historical) of its claims. Theological claims are grounded in an acceptance of the validity of a ‘history’ or the pool of ‘evidence’ (epigraphical, textual, traditional- or whatever else)relevant to their origins. All theology exists in the universal sphere: and theology is mutually dependent on other universal phenomena which have occurred in the universe’s history.
To consider and/or judge theological claims in the abstract will of course lead to confusion- especially if youo haven’t considered and/or accepted the histories or pools of evidence relevant to the claims. The viability of all theological claims, then, is conditional on the ‘evidence’ within the background of the wider religious background of those claims.
Right. That’s nothing I haven’t considered. Of course people try to mold their theology to fit reality, but that doesn’t make the theology itself credible.
The fact that people have carried a certain form of religion a long time, and the resultant inclusion of that religion into history, does not quantify any claims made by said religion.
The only way any one theology could become more than just a guess, it would have to, as I said, be backed by some sort of emperical or other physical evidence. Since even most theists will admit this is impossible, a guess is all it can ever be. It can’t even raise to the level of a hypothesis, which would give it at least a little quantification.
If any theology is a guess because it lacks any verifiable evidence, then so too does its refutation. The fact that, when Atheists say that there is absolutely no God requires them to be Omniscient to say it (thus making them Gods of a sort) and their saying it alone isn’t enough to refute the billions of believers across the Globe. If you say something about God but can’t actually prove it you are just practicing your own theology. Either God Exists or he does not.
Pv~P
Dr., what makes your assertion that god is not real any more valid than the opposite guess id make?
People who believe in God could say their belief is not less justified than another one’s disbelief is because both can only argument their claim by using an argumentum ad ignorantiam (until this time at least).
The problem is thus that it doesn’t make sense. Assume you and me live in a place where there are no tigers, but we know from tv and such that tigers live elsewhere. I could claim thus that my shoes (assume a unique pair) protect me from tigers. There is no way you can disprove my claim.
Because the claim of the existence of a God has no proof of any valid kind, one should not make such a claim.
I don’t understand what is wrong with agnosticism, there can be a theology that is considered valid, if it’s based on empirical evidence.
I don’t think the dictionary definition states theism should be based on nothing considered valid according to human logic.
Note: I realise science only describes the world as we perceive it and that there is no way we can know how an object is in itself since we can only obtain information from an object by perceiving it. Hence, you could claim no scientific evidence is correct per definition. But we’ll leave this out of this thread because thinking like that results in uselesness of any science, unless you define science as ‘understanding our perception of the world’.
el-half,
if knowing that your shoes protected you from tigers made you feel better about your life and made it easier to live, why would you refuse to believe it?
granted, most religions do not make your life better. but a purely deist, prayer-free life where you accept that youll live forever is improved by not desperately trying to experience everything you possibly can IMO.
how is your life better if you refuse to accept that your shoes will protect you from tigers if you know for sure that yoll never see a tiger in your life? if it doesnt make your life better, why bother?
Hi everyone
I am an agnostic… and it is the only “reasonable” thing to be…
I do not know if God exists… much less which religion is the right one… only the theories I can prove/demonstrate are true… This, however, does not mean that all i have not yet proved/demonstrated does NOT exist…
To argue that, becasue there are an infinit nr of possibilites, it is impossible for there to be one correct one… is just odd…
let x=god
x>universe
Just because i do not know “x” does not mean that there is no x… it simply means i cannot figure it out logicaly… I’m forced to guess what “x” is… and if “x” even exists… Making me an agnostic… whatever i come up with… i cannot prove it either way… so in the end… i don’t know… I’m an agnostic…
The idea of theism as well as atheism is equally rediculous to me… It’s a baseless beliefe… the result of some personal desire fir it to be true…
I don’t understand how one can believe in something non-perceivable and which is not proven to be true or even only possibly true.
Someone makes a claim Gv~G
G
They supply no actual proof towards the truth of G’s existence
Someone makes a counter claim
Gv~G
~G
They provide no actual proof towards the truth of G’s non existence.
An Atheist can point out “well, you cannot prove a negative” but Atheists often do not say that, instead they say “God does not exist” which is taking the negation as proof for itself. It doesn’t actually prove God doesn’t exist, merely that said Atheist doesn’t “believe” that God exists. The Atheist assertion that God does not exist is predicated on belief, no different from those who believe in the existence of God, neither stance is rational in and of itself.
In general, I don’t see how how a statement like “I don’t know whether or not X is true” can be called universally irrational. For nearly any claim, especially one as distant as a religious claim, there must be people for whom it is reasonable to be uncertain.
Now, the claim that “I don’t know if God exists, and neither does anyone else” is irrational, I would say.
of course he is still possible. until we know all that there is to know, and we know that what we know is all that there is to know (which we cant) gods existence is always a possibility.
also, my god has the property of being imperceptible to us. so i dont understand why you wouldnt understand. its a choice, based on irrational feelings, but its not verifiably wrong, thats for sure.
an interresting observation to be sure… however, If someone were to claim they knew for sure what “x” was… that person would have to account for this alleged knowledge… seeing as no christian (thus far) has been able to do so, other than mearly state “i just know”, this renders it extreamly likely that they are subject to an irrational conviction… I might not know the persons mind… But if the person is human, i know his limits… and i can deduce that he is incapable of having obtained such knowledge if he is unable to demonstrate the source…
we are not born with knowledge of god’s existence, after all… it must be obtained…
Well, that’s not exactly true. Christians offer a variety of accounting for how they know what they know about God and religion- For example, that God reveals Himself through prayer.
Whether rational or non-rational, all is a man-made construct requiring a leap of faith. I’m still trying to figure out what is the point of this? I’m a declared agnostic, but I’ve never thought or said that being an agnostic is somehow rational. I’ve never heard an agnostic declare their position as rational. At best, I consider agnosticism to at least be honest in that acknowledging that I do not and cannot know seems to be man’s state of being. Only the deeply religious or the avowed atheist claims to ‘know’ - and with nothing but surmise to back their ‘knowing’.
Is there something “beyond the veil”? Sometimes it seems so, and because man is the only creature (that we know of) that can assign meaning to the universe, any answer is as ‘valid’ as the next.
If there is anything important, it is to recognize and acknowledge that it is all a construct of mind. (This statement is a construct)
JT
Hi Uccisore
really?.. so if i pray i will see god?
Gimme a second…
Ok… I did a little prayer… no god man… sorry… all i ended up doing was feel stupid…
any other “proof” of god you’d like to present to me?
Hi tentative
Why are you an agnostic?
If you answer this question… you have a rational reason… if not… you’re nothing more than someone who hasn’t given anything any thaught…
Did I say that? I don’t think I did. You said that Christians don’t offer an explanation for how they know about God. I pointed out that, in fact, they do. So you’re wrong.
So now that we both see that Christians do offer an accounting for how they know about God, is the above your sarcastic way of saying that you don’t like the explanation? Perhaps you find something wrong with the explanation? We could talk about that if you like- if you can drop the attitude.
There’s two times of agnostic, tenative. The first merely says “I don’t know”. Realizing that you don’t know something must be rational, in those cases where in fact you don’t know.
The second kind of agnostic also says, “Nobody else knows either,” and sometimes “nobody ever can know”. These are both positive claims, which can be criticized or supported, and as such, can be rational or irrational.
MMP,
I’m agnostic because I believe that there is no way to ‘know’ the answer to metaphysical questions.
Your assumption that I must have a rational position to be agnostic is incorrect. Rationality applies to a construct, but at the base of all is irrational belief. I may use rationality in constructing an explanation of that which is, but my belief in this and that is finally irrational.
When I say I’m agnostic it is the result of study and contemplation. Are you sure you understand the concept of agnosticism.?
JT
I like you Dr. Satanical. You’re my kind of guy… but Agnosticism… isn’t necessary unrational… it’s just as unrational as atheism… or theism for that matter. Rationality is all in the mind. It doesn’t exist on some levels.