so it is true that I believe there is no God. — Tom Storm

OK, good, you hadn't stated that clearly before, and that does make a difference.

But one can consistently believe (ii) and (iv), since they would, by the same process, imply that one could
vi. not believe (god exists and god does not exist)
that is, believe a tautology. This gives us a third mode of belief,

c) an agnostic will accept both ii and iv

We are left with three possible forms of considered belief:
Committing to a belief that god exists
Committing to a belief that god does not exist
Not committing to either belief

Agnosticism is, therefore, a valid form of belief. — Banno

In my view, ‘God’ refers to a qualitative relation. I believe that the possibility of ‘God’ exists, and yet I won’t commit to a belief in the existence of a necessary being, let alone one that is omniscient, omnipresent and omni-benevolent. The way I see it, there is a difference between believing that infinity exists and believing it exists as a quantity.

I think there is philosophical usefulness in imagining the existence of a relational absolute such as ‘God’, without necessarily conceptualising it beyond a formless quality or idea, a paradox. That I can entertain or dismiss such an unjustifiable belief points to a relational or qualitative aspect of experience from which the limits of logic or reason may be understood. But about this (true to Wittgenstein) I cannot speak - not in any way considered reasonable. It’s like Kantian aesthetics without an object.

So, while I have no argument against those who feel they can commit to a belief either way, I disagree with those who insist that only one can be true, or who form arguments either way on logical grounds. It’s a pointless exercise, in ignorance of their affected position - the arbitrary commitment (of attention and effort) they have made in relation to a paradox.

But about this (true to Wittgenstein) I cannot speak - not in any way considered reasonable — Possibility

I can go along with that.

Agnosticism is, therefore, a valid form of belief. — Banno

This sets up an argument for being a theist from a pragmatic point of view.

What is learned from considering the various "proofs" for the existence of God is that none of them succeed and that they're all largely contrived. They don't succeed because there is no force of logic alone that will force god into existence and they are contrived because I've really not met anyone who was convinced there is a god by relying upon those arguments. I do think some hold more sway than others to theists (like the teleological argument), but I just don't know that an atheist ever changed his stripes after reading Paley.

So, if your argument is correct that agnosticism is reasonable, then it would hold that theism is reasonable as well as long as you acknowledge that your belief in God is not necessitated, but instead chosen. In other words, if I sit here, the helpless agnostic, not knowing if God is or is not, then I can choose to believe if that choice better serves me. A pragmatist doesn't have to claim the agnostic or the atheist is factually wrong, and in fact, he can honestly claim he has no real idea what the Truth is, but that doesn't restrain him from acting and deciding and seeing how things turn out based upon what belief he has chosen.

The value of a belief relates to how it affects your life, your happiness, your sense of meaning and those things personal to you. A life lived and died with a lesser degree of happiness is not superior because you demanded a rigid fidelity to the indecision that agnosticism entailed or because you insisted upon choosing atheism because it seemed more consistent with contemporary norms. This isn't to say there aren't happy agnostics and atheists, and, if there are, they get no judgment from me. But, if we accept your premise that atheism, agnosticism, and theism are all reasonable beliefs, I would question why someone would choose, from a pragmatic perspective, one that yields less meaningful results and would wonder why anyone or any society would criticize a theist whose beliefs offer meaning to him.

The law of excluded middle appears to invalidate (C), but this is superficial. It is true that either god exists, or that god does not. No other possibility is available. It is also true that either one believes that X, or one does not. — Banno

No, this is actually an instance of the fallacy of the excluded middle. While it may be true that either god exists or doesn't it is not true that either one believes something or does not. I have no belief on the existence or the non-existence of god.

So, if your argument is correct that agnosticism is reasonable, — Hanover

The conclusion was that agnosticism is valid, not that it is reasonable.

Nor I think is pragmatism to do with happiness so much as mere utility. Were we having this conversation in 15th century Europe, we would doubtlessly both be avowedly and devoutly Catholic, regardless of what we might believe. Because there is more to what one does than just what one thinks.

You appear to be claiming I am wrong while agreeing with my analysis.

Not sure how that is supposed to work. Try reading the OP again, perhaps, and noting that it is about how it is not true that either one believes something or does not.

You say that if you are agnostic, if you have no belief either way regarding the existence of God, then from that starting position you can choose to believe one way or the other based on considerations of happiness and health, or in other words, flourishing.

But could you. pragmatically starting out from a genuine agnosticism, arrive at a genuine belief either way? I doubt it; I think the best that could be arrived at from that starting point would be a decision to commit to "thinking and acting as if"; the entertaining of a kind of provisional hypothesis that one stipulates shall not be provisional (or necessarily entertaining).

On the other hand you could go with your intuitions in the matter, if your rational deliberations have led you to agnosticism; you could choose to be moved, as you can be by art, to the entertainment of a fantasy, only in this case it is a fantasy to which you have granted lifelong commitment (at least for now). Sounds like fun; I might try it one day!

The conclusion was that agnosticism is valid, not that it is reasonable. — Banno

If validity is the logical following of conclusion from premise, and the premise is lack of evidence either way, then agnosticism is indeed the most reasonable position to hold. Unfortunately many people cannot be comfortable with the realization that they don't know, so they contrive to pretend that they can and do know, and thus we have theists and atheists, and the constant arguing and carping ad nauseum between them. This annoying argumentation inevitably happens as each thinks they must be right, and cannot countenance the disagreement of others because it makes them feel insecure..

So, while I have no argument against those who feel they can commit to a belief either way, I disagree with those who insist that only one can be true, or who form arguments either way on logical grounds. It’s a pointless exercise, in ignorance of their affected position - the arbitrary commitment (of attention and effort) they have made in relation to a paradox. — Possibility

Pretty much my position exactly, nicely put!

The conclusion was that agnosticism is valid, not that it is reasonable. — Banno

Do you think it reasonable?

Nor I think is pragmatism to do with happiness so much as mere utility. — Banno

Could be both. Utility can be measured by happiness as well. That's how that often works.

Were we having this conversation in 15th century Europe, we would doubtlessly both be avowedly and devoutly Catholic, regardless of what we might believe. Because there is more to what one does than just what one thinks. — Banno

Nah, I'd be a persecuted Jew. Anyway, today we don't labor under such religious oppression and persecutions. Secular governments have now assumed that role.

Deleted

The possible range of beliefs are:

A) one believes that god exists, or
B) one believes god does not exist, (disbelief);or
C) one, after due consideration, chooses not to commit to believing in god, nor to commit to disbelieving in god or
D) one has not formed an opinion because one has not considered the issue (lack of belief) — Banno

Next to the aforementioned E option, I can think of another one:

F) arriving at the belief that if God exist, God is [insert set of particular characteristics].


I believe that if God exists, God is a Trumpista (and everything that comes with that).
How else do we explain that a certain person has just so much luck, so much is going his way, he always comes out on top? At some point, divine protection seems like the only plausible explanation left.

I missed (E)...?

If god supports Trump, I'm joining the rebellion.

↪baker I missed (E)...? — Banno

Here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/562253

If god supports Trump, I'm joining the rebellion.

I mean seriously. How do you explain that some apparently very bad people have it so good in life????

How do you explain that some apparently very bad people have it so good in life???? — baker

Justice is made, by us; not a gift from god.

C) one, after due consideration, chooses not to commit to believing in god, nor to commit to disbelieving in god or — Banno

E) after considering the issue, one finds it impossible to form an opinion (in effect, this is lack of belief; the very act of considering the issue has rendered it undecidable, moot). — baker

I don't see how these differ.

I don't see how these differ. — Banno

In that in E, there is no element of choice. It's the state of mind when one has throughly considered the issue, but ends up, even literally, with an open mouth and nothing comes out; it's bewilderment.

How do you explain that some apparently very bad people have it so good in life????
— baker

Justice is made, by us; not a gift from god. — Banno

This doesn't address my concern. The fact is that some apparently very bad people have it very good in life. You say justice is made by us. Well then, how is it justice that some apparently very bad people aren't prosecuted by people? Why is there so little actual will and success to do so?

Agnosticism? It's lazy, even stupid. — 180 Proof