Agnosticism and Me

[Truthseeker]

Agnostic: Someone who only uses one tool in the figuring-things-out toolbox, but at least uses it correctly.

I think what you're comparing to a single tool is actually more like an entire toolbox. Logic, the scientific method, mathematics, these are different tools in a tool box full of tools designed to determine what is actually true. I think ArchAngel had a wonderful answer about other tools like faith and prayer: they are tools designed for a different job. That job is to sustain beliefs that are comforting or inspiring, qualities with no bearing on likelihood of truth.

The job is to understand the Universe as a whole. You keep talking about truth in a very narrow and limited way, and I haven't yet been able to tell if that's how you see it, which leads you to believe that incomplete toolbox is adequate to the task, or whether you're artificially narrowing your definition of truth in order to accommodate a desire to use only those few tools.

By truth I mean the reality that is independent from human perception, the universe that does not disappear when I close my eyes and plug my ears. As humans, we can never, ever access that reality. But we have tools that are capable of developing a picture of it that becomes increasingly accurate the more we learn and refine our methods.

A tool that effectively protects our approximation of truth from being tainted by perceptions and biases is a good tool for truth-seeking. For example, the scientific method stresses repeatable results so that conclusions can be verified and reverified by numerous people. But a tool that does not include these safeguards is a bad tool, at least when it comes to the task of discerning reality. Prayer and faith are bad tools by this definition. Not only are they utterly defined by personal biases and perceptions, but some would argue with much evidence on their side that they are entirely fabricated by those forces.

By today's standards the evidence would be counted as negligible as you say, but as an ancient document couldn't it at least be very poor positive evidence? I wonder, would a "real" encounter with the supernatural in the first century have been documented differently?

I think "very poor positive evidence" is apt in the sense that it is theoretically possible to draw the (highly dubious) inference that because an anonymous person wrote that something happened, it is therefore more likely to have actually happened. As for how it would be documented differently if it were real, I think it is a question based on a flawed premise because we do not really know how this "encounter with the supernatural" was documented at all, real or fake. All we have are secondary sources from which to extrapolate some of what would have been in earlier written and oral sources. Comparing the lost and loosely reconstructed documentation of Jesus's miracles to a completely hypothetical "real" documentation of "real" miracles would take us nowhere.

[ArcticFox]

By truth I mean the reality that is independent from human perception, the universe that does not disappear when I close my eyes and plug my ears.

Good definition. We share it.

As humans, we can never, ever access that reality.

I disagree utterly. A statement like that strikes me as being very limited, especially because by now while we acknowledge a limited understanding of reality, that's hardly binding on the future.

But we have tools that are capable of developing a picture of it that becomes increasingly accurate the more we learn and refine our methods.

Especially if we use them all, instead of picking and choosing the ones that bring us the most comforting results.

A tool that effectively protects our approximation of truth from being tainted by perceptions and biases is a good tool for truth-seeking.

Any "approximation of truth" is inherently tainted by perceptions and biases. That's why it's unwise to become too entrenched.

For example, the scientific method stresses repeatable results so that conclusions can be verified and reverified by numerous people.

Which makes it a useful tool, but it's neither infallible nor useful in all applications.

But a tool that does not include these safeguards is a bad tool, at least when it comes to the task of discerning reality.

In your opinion. I reiterate "When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

Prayer and faith are bad tools by this definition. Not only are they utterly defined by personal biases and perceptions, but some would argue with much evidence on their side that they are entirely fabricated by those forces.

Prayer and faith are great tools when properly employed. Ever heard the phrase "the right tool for the right job?"

The problem with your definition is that it sets the standard in such a way as to utterly disqualify anything but the preferred conclusion.

Let me offer an analogy:

Suppose I assert that Warhammer is the absolute, quantitatively, objectively best game ever created. Here's how I can prove it:

We define what makes a game good:

-It has to use dice to generate random numbers.
-It has to promote creativity through the customizing of game pieces (miniatures)
-It has to have a complex and challenging rules set
-It has to be absurdly expensive
-It has to have a robust fluff and back story
-It has to have flexible rules for customizing armies and units

So, now that we have our standard in place, all I have to do is show that Warhammer meets all of those criteria and no other game does. Voila'! I've proven my case!



Science, while a fantastically useful tool for learning about the Universe, is only a tool, one of many. Can science be used to answer every possible question you could ever have in your entire life? If you feel the impulse to answer "yes," then you've fallen victim to the hammer analogy.

[Truthseeker]

As humans, we can never, ever access that reality.

I disagree utterly. A statement like that strikes me as being very limited, especially because by now while we acknowledge a limited understanding of reality, that's hardly binding on the future.

I don't see where there is room for disagreement. Our perceptions are our only window into the outside world. Even religious experiences are filtered through them. There is no escaping perception, so we can never access a world independent from it.

But we have tools that are capable of developing a picture of it that becomes increasingly accurate the more we learn and refine our methods.

Especially if we use them all, instead of picking and choosing the ones that bring us the most comforting results.

If I was picking and choosing "tools" based on what brought comforting results, I'd rely completely on the ones telling me that I get to live forever in a paradise after I die.

A tool that effectively protects our approximation of truth from being tainted by perceptions and biases is a good tool for truth-seeking.

Any "approximation of truth" is inherently tainted by perceptions and biases. That's why it's unwise to become too entrenched.

Agreed. That's why good tools are those that minimise the taint, even if it can never be eliminated. It is also why I would never proclaim an absolute belief in any fact.

For example, the scientific method stresses repeatable results so that conclusions can be verified and reverified by numerous people.

Which makes it a useful tool, but it's neither infallible nor useful in all applications.

Right.

Prayer and faith are bad tools by this definition. Not only are they utterly defined by personal biases and perceptions, but some would argue with much evidence on their side that they are entirely fabricated by those forces.

Prayer and faith are great tools when properly employed. Ever heard the phrase "the right tool for the right job?"

Discerning accurate information about the world outside our perceptions is the wrong job for prayer and faith, though. These are things that exist entirely within perception. I know you believe God actually communicates with you doing prayer. You have no evidence of this outside of your own perceptions. Or maybe you do, and you've tested this systematically somehow. If you have then I'd like to hear about it.

The problem with your definition is that it sets the standard in such a way as to utterly disqualify anything but the preferred conclusion.

Let me offer an analogy:

Suppose I assert that Warhammer is the absolute, quantitatively, objectively best game ever created. Here's how I can prove it:

We define what makes a game good:

-It has to use dice to generate random numbers.
-It has to promote creativity through the customizing of game pieces (miniatures)
-It has to have a complex and challenging rules set
-It has to be absurdly expensive
-It has to have a robust fluff and back story
-It has to have flexible rules for customizing armies and units

So, now that we have our standard in place, all I have to do is show that Warhammer meets all of those criteria and no other game does. Voila'! I've proven my case!

I see your analogy and I acknowledge it to some extent. A good tool for discerning accurate information about the universe that exists independently from human perception is one that involves some sort of system designed to minimize error stemming from those perceptions. If that seems calculated to favor science, then fair enough and I welcome you to explain an alternative method for weeding perception out of truth.

Science, while a fantastically useful tool for learning about the Universe, is only a tool, one of many. Can science be used to answer every possible question you could ever have in your entire life? If you feel the impulse to answer "yes," then you've fallen victim to the hammer analogy.

Science cannot answer every question I could ever have in my life. Some questions cannot be answered by science because they are not of a factual nature ("is Hamlet good?"), and I also acknowledge that some factual questions may be beyond human capacity for understanding through science. I just don't acknowledge that there are other tools known to us that can do any better.

[ArchAngel]

TS, I'm not sure if I can stop giving you Rep Points. Well answered.

Reason is an amazing ability, but recall that eugenics sounded very reasonable to far too many people in the early 20th century. Reason untempered by "baser" emotions like empathy and compassion can walk you into genocide.

Men are not bipedal abacuses.

Well, actually no. Genocide are motivated by a very primal tribalistic mentality and not grounded in rationality one bit. Us good, them bad. There's little to no thought of the humanity of the victims, nor what impact this has on the world. Very emotionally based. Even eugenics programs are based on racist urges, which stem from the same mentality. It's incredibly animalistic.
It's by understanding that this can be overcome it.

Now, we aren't walking calculators. If we were, we'd be a whole lot better at understanding math and the universe. For one, we'd be able conceptualize numbers above 3 a whole lot better.
But, we have animal urges and we need to understand them. They're not all bad. Empathy and compassion, like you mention, are the mechanisms in which we generate and maintain social cohesion. We long to connect with others and that makes us stronger. We would never be able to survive otherwise.
I'm not arguing we should ignore feelings and emotions, but understand it. By understanding the baser impulses we have, we can better shape ourselves and society. We humans have the ability to temper our impulses and feelings and become something more.

[ArcticFox]

I don't see where there is room for disagreement. Our perceptions are our only window into the outside world. Even religious experiences are filtered through them. There is no escaping perception, so we can never access a world independent from it.

Where we differ is that I don't accept the premise that the status quo must always be that our perceptions must distort input. It would be like saying humans in centuries past could never imagine the Earth being a sphere because they always perceived it as flat. The farthest I've ever been from the surface of this planet is about 6 miles so my perception has always been that it's flat... and yet I have no difficulty seeing past that and accepting that it is spherical.

If I was picking and choosing "tools" based on what brought comforting results, I'd rely completely on the ones telling me that I get to live forever in a paradise after I die.

On the surface that would seem the most comforting answer, wouldn't it? But it isn't... because a lot of baggage comes with that belief. Think it's comfortable to have people of other beliefs look at you as a zealot, a backward thinking traditionalist, a homophobe? Think it's comfortable to be sent a box of alcoholic treats by a well-meaning co-worker and not know how to react? Think it's comfortable to have to console your own children who come home upset because they got picked on at school for having the temerity to hold to their moral standards that you taught them as a part of your religion? Think we aren't all tempted sometimes to just say "screw it" and give in to societal pressure and just indulge in anything and everything bombarding us from all sides? Name one single personal vice that isn't glorified in popular media these days.

So yeah, being able to free oneself from the idea of consequences beyond this life by taking on an atheist view has some pretty significant attractions, and I've known people who aren't just comfortable with it, but revel in it.

Agreed. That's why good tools are those that minimise the taint, even if it can never be eliminated. It is also why I would never proclaim an absolute belief in any fact.

Science isn't unique in this way. Every tool in that toolbox has some sort of mechanism to deal with personal bias.

Right.

And yet we increasingly live in a culture that attempts to venerate the scientific method as if it were infallible. It's the excuse I've seen self-proclaimed intellectuals use to sneer derisively at those who disagree with them. The irony being they don't even see the inherent contradiction...

Discerning accurate information about the world outside our perceptions is the wrong job for prayer and faith, though. These are things that exist entirely within perception. I know you believe God actually communicates with you doing prayer. You have no evidence of this outside of your own perceptions. Or maybe you do, and you've tested this systematically somehow. If you have then I'd like to hear about it.

You said yourself that every perception is tainted by bias. Even a scientific instrument has to be read and the resulting data interpreted. If employing science to this end were as simple as you suggest, then no scientists anywhere would disagree over anything, ever. Frankly, I don't see how you can be so dismissive of any means of determining the truth of reality given your own assertions about how reliable our perceptions are (or not, as it were.)

I see your analogy and I acknowledge it to some extent. A good tool for discerning accurate information about the universe that exists independently from human perception is one that involves some sort of system designed to minimize error stemming from those perceptions. If that seems calculated to favor science, then fair enough and I welcome you to explain an alternative method for weeding perception out of truth.

By attacking the problem from multiple angles, using multiple tools, and keeping discussion (and minds) open.

Science cannot answer every question I could ever have in my life. Some questions cannot be answered by science because they are not of a factual nature ("is Hamlet good?"), and I also acknowledge that some factual questions may be beyond human capacity for understanding through science. I just don't acknowledge that there are other tools known to us that can do any better.

Really? Why not? The impression I've gotten is that your rejection of these other tools has less to do with their relative effectiveness, and more to do with them not being Science (the hammer).

"Hey Truthseeker, how come you don't use this ratchet to get that bolt out?"
"Because it isn't a hammer."
"But... a hammer won't work..."
"Well that ratchet isn't a hammer, so it won't work either."
"..."

[ArchAngel]

Every tool in that toolbox has some sort of mechanism to deal with personal bias.

So, what are the tools in the toolboxes and what qualifies them to be considered as a tool?

[Truthseeker]

Where we differ is that I don't accept the premise that the status quo must always be that our perceptions must distort input. It would be like saying humans in centuries past could never imagine the Earth being a sphere because they always perceived it as flat. The farthest I've ever been from the surface of this planet is about 6 miles so my perception has always been that it's flat... and yet I have no difficulty seeing past that and accepting that it is spherical.

Perceptions don't necessarily distort all input to the point that it is unreliable. We just need to be constantly refining our conclusions as we gain new input.

People in centuries past had the capacity, in theory, to imagine that the Earth is a sphere. If they didn't, then that's because they had not accumulated a sufficient amount of observations to draw that conclusion.

Your visual perception has always been that the Earth is flat, but you have perceived more than that. You have read books, seen pictures of the Earth from space, perhaps traveled around the Earth or heard about people who have . . . you have received all sorts of sensory data that your mind has analyzed and has used to conclude that the Earth is round. This is not an example of you communing to a conclusion despite your perceptions. You have come to this conclusion based on a wide range of perceptions that are consistent and even have the power to explain why the Earth appears flat from an airplane.

The Bible has a story that says Jesus went to the top of a mountain so high that he could see the whole world. People now say it was a metaphorical or "spiritual" mountain—it must be in order for the Bible to be historically accurate—though the text itself doesn't say as much. This conversation just reminded me of that.

On the surface that would seem the most comforting answer, wouldn't it? But it isn't... because a lot of baggage comes with that belief. Think it's comfortable to have people of other beliefs look at you as a zealot, a backward thinking traditionalist, a homophobe? Think it's comfortable to be sent a box of alcoholic treats by a well-meaning co-worker and not know how to react? Think it's comfortable to have to console your own children who come home upset because they got picked on at school for having the temerity to hold to their moral standards that you taught them as a part of your religion? Think we aren't all tempted sometimes to just say "screw it" and give in to societal pressure and just indulge in anything and everything bombarding us from all sides? Name one single personal vice that isn't glorified in popular media these days.

So yeah, being able to free oneself from the idea of consequences beyond this life by taking on an atheist view has some pretty significant attractions, and I've known people who aren't just comfortable with it, but revel in it.

I agree that not having to worry about being tortured forever is a benefit atheism has over many Christian sects. But the way you describe Mormonism it sounds like no matter what I'm not getting eternal torment unless I purposefully and knowingly undermine God. I don't see why anyone wouldn't prefer that reality to atheism. I even think I could live with people calling me backwards if I honestly believed I was going to get my own Universe for my troubles. And I have no tolerance for alcohol, anyway. Every time in the past year or so that I've had even one beer I've regretted it physically because of heartburn, nausea, headaches, and difficulty sleeping. I'm also trying to ween off coffee by switching to decaf in the interim. It makes me feel too anxious to work.

And yet we increasingly live in a culture that attempts to venerate the scientific method as if it were infallible. It's the excuse I've seen self-proclaimed intellectuals use to sneer derisively at those who disagree with them. The irony being they don't even see the inherent contradiction...

Yeah, that is an inherent contradiction.

You said yourself that every perception is tainted by bias. Even a scientific instrument has to be read and the resulting data interpreted. If employing science to this end were as simple as you suggest, then no scientists anywhere would disagree over anything, ever. Frankly, I don't see how you can be so dismissive of any means of determining the truth of reality given your own assertions about how reliable our perceptions are (or not, as it were.)

That's why I keep stressing that science aims to minimize error due to bias. I never said it could completely free us from bias, just that it has safeguards that reduce it.

Really? Why not? The impression I've gotten is that your rejection of these other tools has less to do with their relative effectiveness, and more to do with them not being Science (the hammer).

"Hey Truthseeker, how come you don't use this ratchet to get that bolt out?"
"Because it isn't a hammer."
"But... a hammer won't work..."
"Well that ratchet isn't a hammer, so it won't work either."
"..."

To me it seems more like I'm trying to hit a nail that is too big for my hammer, and religious people are offering me an orange.

"How's that supposed to help me hit this nail?"
"It tastes so good!"

[Orodrist]

"Hey Truthseeker, how come you don't use this ratchet to get that bolt out?"
"Because it isn't a hammer."
"But... a hammer won't work..."
"Well that ratchet isn't a hammer, so it won't work either."
"..."

To me it seems more like I'm trying to hit a nail that is too big for my hammer, and religious people are offering me an orange.

"How's that supposed to help me hit this nail?"
"It tastes so good!"

Just...for the sake of my sanity guys...stop using carpentry comparisons. It hurts my brain seeing how such exceptionally intelligent people can butcher such a simple act of driving a nail.

Spoiler:

There's no such thing as too small a hammer. I have personally driven an eight inch spike with the smallest hammer you can buy. I've also done it with a chunk of granite but that's another story. Any "nail" that size and bigger than that isn't a nail. It's a spike, you use a maul for those. Desk jockeys <_<

[ScotchRobbins]

You actually could drive a nail into wood with an orange. There's a trick to it.

[brandon1984]

Or you could drive the head of the nail into orange trying and squirt citric acid all over your face.

[Bruce_Campbell]

Or you could drive nail in with your face! And after you finished, you wouldn't have to worry about driving in any more nails, because you'd probably be a ward of the state or something.

[ArcticFox]

Perceptions don't necessarily distort all input to the point that it is unreliable. We just need to be constantly refining our conclusions as we gain new input.

People in centuries past had the capacity, in theory, to imagine that the Earth is a sphere. If they didn't, then that's because they had not accumulated a sufficient amount of observations to draw that conclusion.

I agree, but I also think we have it within us today to be able to look at something without bias. We just haven't learned how yet.

Your visual perception has always been that the Earth is flat, but you have perceived more than that. You have read books, seen pictures of the Earth from space, perhaps traveled around the Earth or heard about people who have . . . you have received all sorts of sensory data that your mind has analyzed and has used to conclude that the Earth is round. This is not an example of you communing to a conclusion despite your perceptions. You have come to this conclusion based on a wide range of perceptions that are consistent and even have the power to explain why the Earth appears flat from an airplane.

Ah, but I point out to you that my senses have never perceived that the world is round in any way. My hears have heard people say that it is, my eyes have seen video and images depicting a spherical Earth (technically a disc since imaging technology renders 2 D images) and so on... but my belief that the Earth is round is entirely based on my ability to trust those other sources. The only planets I've directly observed for myself to be round are Jupiter and Saturn, through a very nice telescope I once received for Christmas.

So it really isn't a matter of an unbiased perception. In fact, it's precisely because I am biased toward trusting these other sources that my biases contradict my own direct observations. My direct observation says the Earth is flat. An Apollo 9 photographs shows me it is round. I trust the Apollo astronauts enough to override my direct perception, merge that with my own experience that tells me that a sufficiently large sphere will appear flat to someone standing on it, and voila', my brain accepts that I live on a big honkin' sphere.

But I'd like to point something out to you here... I didn't use the Scientific Method to arrive at this understanding. I used other tools in my toolbox. I used:

-My experience of observation. I know a big enough sphere will look flat to a tiny inhabitant on the surface. I've seen things disappear over the horizon.
-My faith in the sources. I believe the Apollo 9 photograph to be authentic, which I trust, in turn, because its authenticity is a simpler conclusion than an incredibly elaborate hoax. (Occam's Razor)
-My understanding of math and physics, which are consistent with the idea that the Earth is spherical.
-My desire to understand, which is the engine that drives it all.

Tools non-useful for this endeavor: Religion, the Scientific Method, philosophy, intuition.

The Bible has a story that says Jesus went to the top of a mountain so high that he could see the whole world. People now say it was a metaphorical or "spiritual" mountain—it must be in order for the Bible to be historically accurate—though the text itself doesn't say as much. This conversation just reminded me of that.

A fine example of applying the right tools for the job. We conclude that the passage is metaphorical, which in turn offers a better understanding of the spiritual message.

I agree that not having to worry about being tortured forever is a benefit atheism has over many Christian sects. But the way you describe Mormonism it sounds like no matter what I'm not getting eternal torment unless I purposefully and knowingly undermine God. I don't see why anyone wouldn't prefer that reality to atheism. I even think I could live with people calling me backwards if I honestly believed I was going to get my own Universe for my troubles. And I have no tolerance for alcohol, anyway. Every time in the past year or so that I've had even one beer I've regretted it physically because of heartburn, nausea, headaches, and difficulty sleeping. I'm also trying to ween off coffee by switching to decaf in the interim. It makes me feel too anxious to work.

A logical thought process, to be sure... But even with the benefits Mormonism comes with its own baggage that can be pretty exhausting. In some ways, Mormonism is more laid back than Protestantism, in other ways it's much more strict. It's hard to be called a non-Christian by other elf-described Christians... especially in a day and age where you'd think they'd want all the allies they can get in a culture that's more hostile to traditional values every day. There's a somewhat stricter sense attire. Church is pretty freakin' long, and that doesn't even include time spent in the Temple. Those things seem pretty mild and mundane compared to a reward of eternal awesomeness but human beings aren't so good at taking the long view at times, and in day to life it can grind on you. The hardest part is the constant societal pressure to compromise one's beliefs, and that's what makes the "screw it" option attractive at times.

That's why I keep stressing that science aims to minimize error due to bias. I never said it could completely free us from bias, just that it has safeguards that reduce it.

Which is what makes it a good tool. Not a perfect tool, not a universal tool, but an amazingly useful one.

To me it seems more like I'm trying to hit a nail that is too big for my hammer, and religious people are offering me an orange.

"How's that supposed to help me hit this nail?"
"It tastes so good!"

Yeah sometimes they do at that. Sometimes religious people are pretty awful at recognizing the right tool for a job too. I once argued with a self-appointed minister who insisted that putting a plant in the oven somehow disproved Evolution. That was an example of trying to use an orange to drive a nail if ever I've seen one. Doesn't mean all religious people do it. I personally prefer to use oranges as batteries.

>>

<<

[ArchAngel]

I wanted to resuscitate(not quite dead enough for a resurrection *wink*) this thread shortly, but I wanted to say something extra on this matter to everybody on this board, and especially those who commented here and elsewhere.

Thank you for your amazingly understanding and kind responses. Not even just this, but none of you treated me differently after this. If I ever had or will ever have the notion that Christians are narrow-minded, ignorant bigots, you guys shattered it and then crushed the remaining shards. You guys are a true testament to both a mind dedicated to seeing other people rationally and the Jesus' teachings of loving others. You are a bunch of great humans and it's been an honor to be among you. I won't lie; it wasn't easy and it was even a little bit scary.


So, thank you once again. Here's a slow clap, from all of me to all of you.

Yes, you guys are an Olympic Jamaican Bobsled team.

[ScotchRobbins]

Well, God willing, this thread will ressurect. I think I have just the tool for the job.

I'm aware that you're technically an atheist, but you are also pro-life (unless I'm misunderstood). Explain the logic to that.

[Bruce_Campbell]

There are plenty of pro-life atheists out there. I used to be pretty hardcore pro-life myself, and still lean that way. (I view abortion as an ugly necessity at times--rape, for example.)

Let me turn that question around on you: Why couldn't an atheist/agnostic be pro-life?