Agnosticism is the most rationally acceptable default position.

Cartesian trigger-puppets

AGNOSTICISM IS THE MOST RATIONALLY ACCEPTABLE DEFAULT POSITION.

Aim

The purpose for defending the proposition at issue is in the hope that those who participate, including myself, may be afforded the opportunity to consider new perspectives, reveal any problems with our reasonings, with the logical structure and contents of our arguments, and above all, to find common ground. One of two possible outcomes will result from this; each of which rendering largely favorable effects. Either increasing awareness to the errors of our thinking, or otherwise increasing confidence from surviving the assault of such critique.

Focus

The focus is on epistemic rationality with regards to the amount of ontological commitments we make, the eloquence, coherence and intelligibility in which our goal is to believe in only true propositions.

Disambiguation

Agnosticism generally is used with theistic and atheistic connotations from the terms derivative usage since it was coined in the late 19th century by English biologist T.H. Huxley. According to the terms more ancient entomological meanings that derived from Hellenistic vocabularies Greek and Latin roots: agnostic comes from "ágnōstos", which means without knowledge in ancient Greek. In contrast, the Greek word "gnosis" means knowledge.

I however use the term to denote a position of uncertainty regarding the truth-value of any proposition or its negation. I take an agnostic position in most cases on the grounds of insufficient evidence. My concern is whether or not I have sufficient epistemic justification to hold such claims to knowledge. In an epistemological sense, the term "agnosticism" is extended beyond the theism\atheism dichotomy or likewise to any other metaphysical concerns of what is or can be; to refocus on epistemic concerns of what can be known regarding agnosticism through a great many such related positions, depending on the "positive epistemic status" at issue.

I do not myself know of any argument for the existence of God which I find convincing; in all of them I think I can find flaws. Equally, I do not know of any argument against the existence of God which is totally convincing; in the arguments I know against the existence of God I can equally find flaws. So that my own position on the existence of God is agnostic — Anthony Kenny (1983: 84–85)

.

Main argument:

P1. If all (non-innate) human knowledge begins from a position of uncertainty emerging from ignorance, and a subset of humans value intellectual honesty, then the subset of humans must by default begin from an agnostic position.

P2. All (non-innate) human knowledge begins from a position of uncertainty emerging from ignorance, and a subset of humans value intellectual honesty.

C. Therefore, the subset of humans who value intellectual honesty must by default begin from an agnostic position.

Argument 2; supporting P2 of argument 1:

P1. If most knowledge is learned through experience, and humans are born prior to experiencing the world, then all (non-innate) human knowledge begins from a position of uncertainty emerging from ignorance.

P2. Most knowledge is learned through experience, and humans are born prior to experiencing the world.

C. Therefore, all (non-innate) human knowledge begins from a position of uncertainty emerging from ignorance.

Argument 3; supporting P2 of argument 2:

P1. Innate knowledge functions at the level of reflexes and instincts and excludes learning through experience.

P2. Basic general knowledge functions beyond the level of reflexes and instincts and requires the accumulation of a body of common knowledge learned through experience.

P3. Specialized knowledge functions beyond the level of basic general knowledge and requires mastering through disciplined investigation and study.

C. Therefore, most knowledge is learned through experience.

Argument 4; supporting P2 and P3 of argument 3.

P1. If all knowledge beyond the innate requires humans to reason between accurate and inaccurate information, then basic general knowledge and specialized knowledge require humans to reason between accurate and inaccurate information.

P2. All knowledge beyond the innate requires humans to reason between accurate and inaccurate information.

C. Therefore, basic general knowledge and specialized knowledge require humans to reason between accurate and inaccurate information.

Argument 5; supporting P2 of argument 4:

P1. If humans are fallible, then humans must reason between accurate and inaccurate information.

P2. Humans are fallible.

C. Therefore, humans must reason between accurate and inaccurate information

Judaka

↪Cartesian trigger-puppets

Agnosticism means uncertainty as you say, however, since atheism requires a lack of belief, these two are compatible. An agnostic atheist lacks a belief in God but cannot be sure as to whether God exists or not. While a gnostic atheist also lacks a belief in God but they lack this belief because they believe they know that there's no God. An agnostic theist might not be sure about whether there's a God but they choose to believe there is one despite not knowing for sure. A gnostic theist believes in God and is sure that there is a God.

However, I'm not even sure if you're providing a stance on agnosticism vs gnosticism because you talk about "beginning from the default position". Which implies that upon learning more, we could switch from the default position to a position of gnosticism, as we learned more. Could you clarify, if a human values intellectual honesty, what exactly are you asking them to do?

180 Proof

The question for me is whether theism is true or not true, and therefore determining (A) 'true = theism', (B) 'not true = atheism', or (C) 'unknowable (undecidable) = agnosticism'. My position is that (B) defeats both (A) & (C). My argument here, however, following from the OP, assumes (C) and concludes with not-(C).

(ax. 1) If theism is realist-cognitive, then its claims (e.g. "the Abrahamic Deity exists") are demonstrably true or not true.

(ax. 2) If theism is nonrealist-noncognitive, then its claims (e.g. "the Abrahamic Deity exists") are mere poetry (i.e. figures of speech). [from ax. 1]

(def. 1) In general agnosticism denotes knowledge, or a decidable truth-value, is lacking which therefore warrants doubt with respect to the claim at issue.

(def. 2) Specifically agnosticism, with respect to a claim that "the Abrahamic Deity exists", denotes warranted doubt in the absence of evidence to decide whether this claim has a positive truth-value or negative truth-value – whether "the Abrahamic Deity exists" is true or not true. [from ax. 2, def. 1]

(def. 3)The evidence is decidable (i.e. probable though not conclusive). Nature, I submit, provides sufficient evidence to decide the issue. [from ax. 1, def. 2]

(prop. 1) Any claim that "the Abrahamic Deity exists" entails that nature is "supernatural", or that its otherwise law-like regularities are arbitrarily, purposefully, changed (suspended). [from ax. 1]

(prop. 2) However, there has never been recorded in history any publicly – directly or indirectly – observed "supernatural", or arbitrarily, purposeful, changes to (suspensions of) nature's law-like regularities. [from def. 3, prop. 1]

(prop. 3) Yet there must be such observable evidence (e.g. corroborable scriptural "revealed" accounts) if "the Abrahamic Deity exists" is true. There isn't, and therefore "the Abrahamic Deity exists" cannot be true. [from prop. 1, prop 2]

(prop. 4) On these basic grounds (though neither exclusively nor exhaustively), it is considerably more reasonable (warranted) than less to assent to "the Abrahamic Deity exist" claim has a negative truth-value – is not true – and, therefore, that agnosticism, with respect to "the existence of the Abrahamic Deity", does not obtain. [from prop. 3] — (excerpts) QED & Other Stigmata

Saphsin

The issue I see is that posing the existence of theistic God requires a definition of God, which involve asserting certain metaphysical claims, such as making claims about a being that transcends the world and so on. All you have to do is dispute the metaphysical claims as incoherent to undermine theism. Suspension of judgment as the conclusion (such as about the existence of aliens in our Galaxy) requires a very different starting point.

SophistiCat

↪Cartesian trigger-puppets

I have no interest in formal debates, either as a participant or as an observer, so perhaps I'll be barking up the wrong tree. But anyway, here are my two cents on your proposal:

Your exposition of the thesis and the argument is overlong and unnecessarily formal. Basic logic is like basic arithmetic: once you acquire competence in it, you rarely have a need to explicitly apply textbook rules and procedures; you just do it. And you should expect similar competence of your peers. Those who would find it difficult to follow your argument when it is stated informally (but clearly and fluently) will likely experience even more difficulty if instead you frog-march them through a page of definitions and syllogisms.

In my experience, when I see such overuse of formalism, it is either a novice, fresh off a logic class and eager to show off their newly acquired prowess, or someone trying, perhaps unconsciously, to puff up a weak or banal argument. (And I have seen this even in academic papers written by prominent philosophers.)

I would suggest that you state your thesis and its supportive arguments in a couple of paragraphs - that should be enough to encompass the substance of what you have written in the OP. And you can omit pedantic qualifications, such as "the subset of humans who value intellectual honesty." You can assume that your peers value intellectual honesty, because if they don't, then they are hardly your peers in this conversation, and why would you even want to discuss philosophy with them?

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪Judaka

First, I would like to clarify that I am taking the positive position and thus affirming the debate proposition captured in the contents of the title. This would be the proposition that any objections would be raised to, and with the inclusion of the arguments I have provided, any contention would want to re-direct focus upon the premises of the arguments since they are (mostly modus ponens) logically valid.

Agnosticism means uncertainty as you say, however, since atheism requires a lack of belief, these two are compatible. — Judaka

This depends upon how we define atheism. Atheism is most generally defined in terms dichotomous of theism, which is the affirmative position regarding a positive claim (namely, the proposition, "At least one god exists,"). A proposition is a statement that is making a claim (either an assertion or a denial) which can be either true or false. This means that every proposition (e.g., "There is [exists] at least one god,") has it's negation (e.g., "There is [exists] NOT at least one god,"). In this context, atheism refers not to a lack of belief (as in the attitude or psychological state of believing) but rather to the propositional content of belief.

(Take note of the aim heading of the OP: I'm seeking a good epistemic position relative to a proposition. This means holding strong epistemic verification and justification with regards to the truth of a proposition. That should such a situation arise in which we are requested to provide any positive epistemic considerations (e.g., grounds, warrants) for the truth of the proposition, that we would most likely have them.)

In these terms, theism is the assertion of a positive claim, thereby taking a position which is affirming the proposition "P" ("God does exist"); whereas atheism is the denial of theism making an opposite (negative) claim, thereby taking a position which is denying the proposition "P". In other words, atheism, in the context of the propositional content of the belief denoted by theism, is a position which is denying a proposition which is equivalent to the logical qualities of a position which is affirming the negation of that proposition. Therefore, to deny the proposition "P" ("God does exist"), has the same logical qualities as the equivalent denial of those affirming the [negating] proposition "-P" ("God does NOT exist")

Most logicians agree that denying a proposition is essentially reducible to affirming a negation. The speech act of denial admittedly has some contention, however in denying that God exists, we are essentially making an equivalent statement affirming that it is not the case that God exists, which is essentially affirming that God does not exist. (See "the denial equivalence," in the above link.)

This way it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against it.

I'm not even sure if you're providing a stance on agnosticism vs gnosticism — Judaka

Im affirming the proposition captured within the contents of the title.

Which implies that upon learning more, we could switch from the default position to a position of gnosticism, as we learned more. — Judaka

Yes.

Could you clarify, if a human values intellectual honesty, what exactly are you asking them to do? — Judaka

In the argument, I am making a conditional, conjuntive statement ("if p and q, then r"). If a subset of humans [who already value intellectual honesty] wish to maintain the intellectual honesty that they value, then they should begin, initially by default, from a position of agnosticism with regards to the truth-value of a proposition (which includes the propositions negation). Im asking nothing. Im drawing inferences between propositions in a way that best maintains consistency.

(I did consider constructing that portion of the argument into a biconditional statement "if and only if" (shortened as "iff") and may edit that in later).

TheMadFool

↪180 Proof

Superb demonstration of how thinking should be done! Kudos to you 180 Proof. I just want to add a point of my own if you don't mind.

Lottery

The purchase of lottery tickets cannot be accounted for by decision models based on expected value maximization. The reason is that lottery tickets cost more than the expected gain, as shown by lottery mathematics, so someone maximizing expected value should not buy lottery tickets — Wikipedia

So, announce/hold a lottery. Those who play are likely to be agnostic because they're clinging as it were to the possibility of winning [God is possible]. Those who refuse to play are atheists because they know of the improbability of winning [God is improbable].

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪180 Proof

Your response is quite eloquently put, however it does not address the argument which I have provided. There is an argument on the table and if it is not addressed, thus not refuted, then the argument will remain standing unchallenged. The argument is deductive and logically valid, thus in order to refute the conclusion one must refute one of the premises. I'll provide an example using your QED argument.

(ax. 1) If theism is cognitive, then its claims (e.g. "the Abrahamic Deity exists") are demonstrably true or not true.

(ax. 2) If theism is noncognitive, then its claims (e.g. "the Abrahamic Deity exists") are mere poetry (i.e. figures of speech). [from ax. 1] — (excerpts) QED & Other Stigmata

Cognition or the lack thereof doesn't entail whether or not a claim is true or not. Cognition is a human (in this context) mental process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through internal reasoning or external direct sensory experience. Demonstrability denotes an ability to be demonstrated via logical/mathematical proofs or empirical verification. Truth does not hinge on whether or not humans possess the cognitive capacity to acquire knowledge of it, nor does it require the quality of demonstrability with regards to limited and fallible human senses and thought processing.

The overall state of affairs of the planets orbiting tje Alpha Centauri star system is not something capable of being demonstrated, thus we are denied any cognition with regards to such, and this is the case regardless of whether or not there is indeed a state of affairs on those extraterrestrial celestial objects - though who would deny such? Uncertainty entails agnosticism.

Also, with the addition of such ontological commitments entailed with postulating the abrahamic deity, you limit the scope of my argument. Agnosticism is not restricted to theological positions, though it was coined as such. Postulating the abrahamic deity, notwithstanding the necessity of particular interpretations, I would likely hold a position of atheism on the grounds of the entailment of logical contradiction.

Do address the argument.

Fooloso4

If all (non-innate) human knowledge begins from a position of uncertainty emerging from ignorance, and a subset of humans value intellectual honesty, then the subset of humans must by default begin from an agnostic position. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

All human knowledge begins with opinion. That is why Aristotle typically begins with the opinions of others and why Descartes begins by rejecting the opinions of others and seeks something certain. Plato's divided line begins with the imagination and moves up to trust or opinion (pistis). Kant and others begins with experience.

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪TheMadFool

To

. . .know of the improbability. . . — TheMadFool

of a proposition is to admit uncertainty and thus take an agnostic position.

I find theology uninteresting, I reference agnosticism in a much broader scope. I am almost entirely uninterested in whether or not there is a god. Would you care to challenge the argument?

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪Fooloso4

All human knowledge begins with opinion. — Fooloso4

Im referring to humans on the individual level. At conception and birth we are blank slates except for some genetic precursors that predispose us to behave instinctively (innate knowledge). Before your conception and subsequently your birth, you had no opinions. You had no language. You derived some meaning, in a primitive sense, from exposure to gestational sensory perception as your nervous system developed. You certainly had no knowledge beyond the innate (if you even want to grant that as knowledge).

During our gestation and likewise before our conception (sans existence) we had no knowledge of philosophy of any kind. Be it Aristotelian, Platonic, Cartesian, Kantian, etc.

Jack Cummins

↪Cartesian trigger-puppets

I am certainly in the position of seeing the whole question of God or the lack of God as central to my philosophy. I have looked at your thread several times, and only replying to it today, for the first time.

Partially, I am in agreement with you about agnosticism as a default position, but my only objection is labels because I see the whole area as being one of contemplation because I don't want to be put into a box. I am not sure if there is any higher power beyond us, but I don't categorical myself as agnostic because I think that it is too much of a category, implying certain limitations in whether there is a God, or underlying source, and I see it as being beyond a spectrum beyond the definitions of theism, atheism or agnosticism. I think that we need look beyond the categories which seem to arise religion and philosophy, in order to open to new ways of seeing the numinous, and trying to frame the many aspects of human experience.

Pinprick

↪Cartesian trigger-puppets

I think agnosticism, meant in the broadest definition possible, as an automatic default position is self-defeating. If we take it to simply mean uncertainty, then doesn’t that mean we must be uncertain about our uncertainty as well? It creates an infinite regress of uncertainty. Doesn’t agnosticism have to be arrived at like all other knowledge? If so, how can it be arrived at without certainty? The agnostic is necessarily certainly uncertain.

In either case, there seems to be an underlying assumption that truth exists prior to agnosticism. We assume causation, some sort of realism, that words/language have meaning, etc. Perhaps we shouldn’t, but if we didn’t we wouldn’t even make it to cogito ergo sum, much less knowledge beyond that.

Tom Storm

↪Cartesian trigger-puppets

Interesting. Does your argument also support agnosticism in regards to Russell's teapot?

I generally take the view that a responsible atheist is atheist in regards to belief and agnostic in terms of knowledge. You can't choose what you believe, and even where knowledge of god is technically uncertain, in practical terms you are likely to maintain disbelief.

Fooloso4

Im referring to humans on the individual level. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

So am I.

At conception and birth we are blank slates — Cartesian trigger-puppets

We are not. Anyone who has children knows this. It has been a long time since I read the literature, but the last I looked the idea of a tabula rasa had been rejected by developmental psychologists.

Before your conception and subsequently your birth, you had no opinions. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Children do not begin by doubting or with uncertainty, they begin by making associations, just like other animals. A bit later they then begin to tell themselves stories. They are quite convinced by their stories.

As Wittgenstein said, there can be no doubt without certainty.

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪Saphsin

Im not interested in debating the existence of God. I tried to separate agnosticism from its theological connotations and etymology in the OP. I refer to agnosticism in the broader sense (a position of uncertainty warranting epistemic doubt with regards to the truth-value of a proposition or its negation "P or not -P").

For example, I am agnostic with regards to whether or not there is life elsewhere in the universe. This is not to say that I don't consider it a high probability that there is life elsewhere, since given the sheer volume of the universe and mathematical calculations it seems there is a reasonable expectation that there is life elsewhere.

This is a bayesian interpretation of probability, though. It functions as an extension of propositional logic insofar as it enables us to reason further through conjecture and draw hypothetical inferences. The key difference is that, unlike with deductive propositions that represent the highest epistemic state afforded to knowledge, bayesian propositions are (methodologically speaking) based on models with random variables and thus render knowledge in the form of a probability distribution.

Therefore, a position of uncertainty, whereby the truth or falsity of a proposition unknown, is warranted on the grounds of incomplete data, absence of empirical evidence, and (once random variables are removed) logically invalid inferences drawn. These aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties render vain the requisite justification on the grounds of insufficient information; it follows, then, that such uncertainties are too insufficient to hold such claims to knowledge at the standards of logical necessity or empirical verification.

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪Fooloso4

At conception and birth we are blank slates

— Cartesian trigger-puppets

We are not. Anyone who has children knows this. It has been a long time since I read the literature, but the last I looked the idea of a tabula rasa had been rejected by developmental psychologists. — Fooloso4

You are omitting the original context in which the whole of my statement relies upon for justification. Consider the statement as a whole, rather than as a mere contextomy.

All human knowledge begins with opinion.
— Fooloso4

Im referring to humans on the individual level. At conception and birth we are blank slates except for some genetic precursors that predispose us to behave instinctively (innate knowledge). — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Im not arguing for tabula rasa and my arguments are consistent with Innatism.

Saphsin

↪Cartesian trigger-puppets

Agnosticism in the broad sense is the conclusion you reach after weighing evidence, that's why people pose to be agnostic about aliens and not matters of relative consensus in the realm of science (I don't know you and what you believe, but Einstein's Relativity for instance?) or everyday matters. For agnosticism to be rationally justified, you clearly have to move beyond the step of being confronted by very strong evidence. The reason I'm mentioning this is that any reasonable form of Agnosticism doesn't function as the starting default. It's the ending conclusion, contingent on the topic question that is being posed.

Of course, it may be rational for people to stay undecided before they explore the available evidence, but that's just "I don't know, I haven't read and thought about it enough yet" That isn't a philosophical position. You can call that Agnosticism starting by default, but that's pretty uninteresting and I don't think that's the topic of issue we're interested in.

You can also choose to be agnostic about an issue and not rationally justified towards such position, if the topic at matter at hand for instance (going back to my previous post) poses concepts that can be shown to be incoherent or contradictory with available evidence.

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪Fooloso4

Before your conception and subsequently your birth, you had no opinions.
— Cartesian trigger-puppets

Children do not begin by doubting or with uncertainty, they begin by making associations, just like other animals. A bit later they then begin to tell themselves stories. They are quite convinced by their stories. — Fooloso4

We are not children at conception nor at birth but rather we are a zygote and newborn, respectively. Concept formation is not the same as opinion formation and both fall tremendously short of epistemic knowledge or true justified beliefs, derived from justified foundational beliefs rather than an incoherent set of beliefs held by children.

Children doubt more than any other stage of human development. Why else would they question everything? I find this seemingly natural forming proclivity in children to engage in an unsophisticated form of the socratic method in dialogue quite refreshing and find myself wishing that more adults could unentrench themselves so easily.

Judaka

↪Cartesian trigger-puppets

I see, well our main disagreement is based on your definition of atheism. Theism as a proposition is based on belief or faith and is not strictly a claim of knowledge, that is gnosticism.

Mariem-webster definition:
belief in the existence of a god or gods

dictionary.com
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

These are the definitions I subscribe to and the second definition even includes how this relates to the definition of atheism. The opposite of belief in the existence of God is a lack of a belief in the existence of God. If we can't agree on this, then we can't go anywhere because you are misconstruing every single position in the debate around theism.

If you revise the definitions as I have suggested then agnostic atheism seems to be the most reasonable default position. This means having the stance that you do not know if God exists and you do not believe he does. It is natural to have a stance of non-belief in the case of being uncertain or uninformed, really your argument doesn't change at all.

I agree with @Saphsin if we're talking about agnosticism as in, an inability to progress beyond knowing whether Gods exist and an unwillingness to say you either believe or don't believe because you don't know, you need to have evaluated all the evidence beforehand. This position cannot be reached when you are completely in the dark.

Replace agnosticism with agnostic atheism.

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪Saphsin

Agnosticism doesn't function as the starting default — Saphsin

You have certainly never seen my watch. If I ask you what it looks like, what default position would you begin from with regards to the observable features of my watch? If you were to walk across a street, you would likely look both ways first. Would this be a function of possessing knowledge prior to your observations? Why would you look if you began from a position of certainty?

Does uncertainty require justification?

Of course, it may be rational for people to stay undecided before they explore the available evidence, but that's just "I don't know, I haven't read and thought about it enough yet" That isn't a philosophical position. — Saphsin

Does one have to be familiar with philosophy in order to engage in philosophical inquiries? I think not. Such is the case for agnosticism as well. It may not be as philosophically interesting, I'll subjectively grant, but it nonetheless is a position. Every stand a subject or agent of philosophical inquiries takes, notwithstanding philosophical ignorance, even if only an idiosyncratic one held by one individual, is nonetheless a position. What other qualifications would you require to accept another persons views on a matter? I never claimed to be defending a robust philosophical position with a rich history of chronological or paradigmatic literature; however, an argument could be made I presume.

Agnosticism at the meta-level is a philosophical position that takes the view that there are ineliminable epistemic possibilities that a proposition is true and ineliminable epistemic possibilities that the propositions negation is true. A meta-agnostic holds that there is an ineliminable epistemic possibility that agnosticism is true and an ineliminable epistemic possibility that agnosticism is false.

You can also choose to be agnostic about an issue and not rationally justified towards such position, if the topic at matter at hand for instance (going back to my previous post) poses concepts that can be shown to be incoherent or contradictory with available evidence. — Saphsin

This is why the argument includes the subset of humans who value intellectual honesty. Otherwise, it would be a bad-faith, sophistic position rather than an authentic agnostic position. Assuming that such a person is indeed engaging in motivated reasoning or is otherwise unscrupulous and not just very confused.

Bartricks

↪Cartesian trigger-puppets

Your position is self-refuting and thus false. For the claim that agnosticism is the rational default is itself a claim that you are asserting as true, not as likely true as false, yes?

Also, there are some propositions whose truth it is not reasonable to be agnostic about. For instance, the proposition "I am thinking" and "I exist" and "there are reasons to believe things".

Most people will agree with you, however. For they are weak and want always to have an excuse not to follow an argument to its conclusion, for often arguments lead to conclusions we dislike and people do not like finding out that the world is not as they want it to be.

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪Judaka

I defined the terms of my position in the OP. If you take a semantic issue with the term then just go by the definition that I provided. There is no consensus in defining these terms and though I appreciate semantics, I prefer to stay focused on the thesis point and avoid tangential ones. I'll humour this one briefly. According to the SEP:

The surprisingly contentious issue of how best to define the terms “atheism” and “agnosticism”. — Paul Draper

See: 1. Definitions of “Atheism,” and 2. Definitions of “Agnosticism” for more (though still not exhaustive) relevant philosophical definitions.

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪Bartricks

refute a premise or the argument goes through.

Im talking about an initial default position that is malleable and receptive to new information and takes into account Bayesian probability (the prior probability distribution of available information until more data becomes available, then a subsequent calculation is made as the posterior probability distribution, which then becomes the new prior). Bayesian probability is not sufficient grounds for justification of a belief, but then again agnosticism is a claim to knowledge rather than belief.

Tom Storm

Replace agnosticism with agnostic atheism. — Judaka

Yep. Pretty much what I said.

Atheist - lacks a belief in god, generally because no convincing reason has been presented to support the proposition. This addresses a person's belief.

One can be an agnostic regarding any knowledge of God, but remain an atheist in terms of belief. Knowledge is fraught. We cannot know for certain that there is not a teapot orbiting Mars.

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪Tom Storm

Im agnostic with regards to many propositions not limited to the existence of God or gods. Referring to atheism and theism only serves to reduce the full scope of my meaning and my argument. Notice that no terms regarding theism or atheism appear within the actual argument itself. I defined my terms so no appeal to dictionaries are required. If you take a semantic issue, then address the concept illustrated by the description and definition that I provided. Im happy to provide clarification. Once clear, if you still take issue, then challenge a premise of the argument. If not, then the argument goes unchallenged and thus unrefuted.

Bartricks

↪Cartesian trigger-puppets

Er, I did. Premise 2 is demonstrably false.

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪Bartricks

there are some propositions whose truth it is not reasonable to be agnostic about. For instance, the proposition "I am thinking" and "I exist" and "there are reasons to believe things". — Bartricks

I agree. I would not hold an agnostic position with regards to those propositions because they are grounded in sufficient epistemic justification. I think agnosticism is the best initial default position when considering any philosophical inquiry, however some can be substantiated, and sometimes quickly seem to substantiate themselves (e.g., "I exist"). There is always room for doubt epistemologically and metaphysically speaking, but I assume the laws of inference in logical space to be the best we have towards proof or justification.

And thus sound argument serves as epistemic justification of knowledge. If I cannot provide a sound argument logically warranted and grounded in either empirical data for objective claims or psychological/phenomenological data for subjective claims, then I maintain an agnostic position until further information is acquired. Is this self refuting? Im operating in logical space.

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪Bartricks

Premise 2 is demonstrably false. — Bartricks

What is the argument for that? Provide the grounds for your assertion please? I'll formalize it so just use natural language.

Cartesian trigger-puppets

↪SophistiCat

Im interested in learning and I want my flaws exposed to me, thus (pedantics aside) I present my argument formally. I am fairly new and would love it if a veteran logician offered their critiques, be it the syntactic form and structure of my formalized argument, or the semantic contents therein. I appreciate your criticism and understand some of your points. Perhaps I am over ambitious, but that is precisely what is required of me in trying to understand this place we find ourselves, and with just a few decades to do so.

On a side note, if you were to formalize your critique of the second antecedent in the conditional conjuntive statement of P1 of the main argument, which is asserted again in P2, then you would realize flaws in your own reasoning. One, it is in the form of modus ponens which is tautological in nature, so it is actually just a specialized construct of logical syllogism rather than pedanticism on my part.

Also, the argument does not assume the psychological state of potential readers but rather, in fact, must include the conditional statement in order to be logically consistent. To say that one should initially take by default the position of agnosticism in order to maximize intellectual honesty, is to assume that intellectual honesty is virtuous, or otherwise a positive normative value, or that it is moral. That assumption bites off more than I can chew, so I navigated the argument around such an unnecessary presupposition.

180 Proof

Do address the argument. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

There are two ways to address an argument: (1) criticism by analysis and (2) criticism by providing a stronger, alternative / counter argument. I chose (2), others have chosen (1). Yeah, it's your OP, Ct-puppet, but the topic is not about you.

↪TheMadFool

Thanks, Fool.

As far as reasoning to 'play or not play' a lottery goes, the agnostic does not play because s/he can't decide whether or not its worth the risk, the theist plays because "with g/G everything, including the jackpot, is possible" and the atheist plays because, no matter how improbable, it remains possible to "win" an extraordinary return on a deminimis investment – white swans do happen! :smirk: :up: – otherwise, not winning is an absolute certainty guaranteed by not playing. The agnostic, seems to me in this instance, is the least rational actor.

Agnosticism is the most rationally acceptable default position.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions