Is an agnostic a cowardly atheist?

[Interbane]

RT: "Thanks IB, it is not right to see karma like a residual for the parts of causality that we do not yet understand through science. I would define it as including both the things we understand and those we don't understand. If your karma is your fate, most of it is probably discernible through observable factors, but there is always something beyond our knowledge as well. The totality of causal influences, well beyond what we can understand, do provide the actual constraints within which freedom can operate. Saying an ecosystem has a character is not personifying it; rather it is recognising that human personality is an example of a quality seen throughout nature. "

We can move past this, I agree with everything except that there is freedom within the constraints. My problem with the total of all unknowns is that this is the territory of superstition and everything-goes. It's the ultimate fallback point when making propositions that are doomed false. The word karma holds much of this mystique from how I view it. I've encountered many ideas grounded in what we do know, with critical premises based in what we don't know. I can accept a word that crosses this boundary in an explanatory fashion as long as there's no propositional agenda that relies too heavily on the "unknown" portion of the word's definition.

RT: "I came across an interesting example in Islam, where many people do not wear seatbelts while driving because they think that their kismet is a ticket from Allah determining when their number is up, and that wearing a seatbelt indicates a lack of faith in the almighty."

If we wait a few centuries, will that mindset be slowly filtered out of our gene pool?

RT: "No, you misunderstand here. Jung is not defining God as what we don't know, but following Paul (Romans 1:19) in saying God is manifest in nature, defined as all in all. "

I still do not understand. Why not just call it nature? I can't see how Jung would come to use the word god unless he took all of nature and added a dash of the unknown, much like how I view gaia or mother earth. I wouldn't be against someone describing nature as god, but if you give them an inch, they take a mile. The use of the word would draw resistance whether there should be any or not. It isn't necessary.

RT: "Again, following Paul's definition of God at 1 Corinthians 15:28 as all in all, Jung is claiming to see a unity in the totality of the cosmos."

Can you explain this unity? If unity references something other than the sum of the parts, it necessarily references an unknown. It is also a more obscure concept, thus the reference is overlooked. I understand there is stuff that is unknown, but it is folly to make propositions based on that, as I'm sure you'll agree. If the word 'unity' references all things that are known but requires a different understanding of the universe, then please help me understand. I viscerally, emotionally understand where you're coming from, but when critically examining it, there is no truth to there being a unity of the cosmos other than hope in an explanation for a worldview without explanation. The unity I perceive that strikes me on a deeper level I realize is a conceptualization of the whole of the universe, and isn't grounded objectively. The cosmos is simply there, with or without the mental methods we use to understand it. Anything beyond that is unobservable, undetectable, and unknown, so shouldn't be used to support an agenda.

RT: "The trouble with Dawkins' criticism is that he presents a continuum ranging from extreme belief, where he wrongly places Jung, across to extreme reason, where he humbly says even he has doubts, implying that this continuum illustrates the path from delusion to enlightenment. However, Dawkins' implicit argument that we cannot perceive a unity in the totality - because that would be religious - strikes me as far from enlightened. Jung sees this religious 'baggage' as useful for the development of morality and human identity."

I would be interested to see how this 'baggage' is used.

Yes, in the different context of Plato's divided line, where knowledge of God is placed at the opposite end of the spectrum from where Dawkins puts it in The God Delusion. If Dawkins is having a sly dig at Plato here I think it backfires.

This is the first I've read about Plato's divided line. You'll have to explain further what you mean with regards to this line. Where in this line is the distinction between objective and subjective references in a modern sense?


RT: "The point is that freedom is channelled within the boundaries of genetic adaptation. We are indeed free to behave randomly, but we choose not to because it is maladaptive."

I understand that, but you can certainly take it a step further than maladaptive behavior control. I challenge you to give me an example of truly random of free behavior. Not guided by past experience or environment. A glimpse at how much we don't know of what factors influence our behavior are those interesting tests that have you do a series of math problems, then pick a random vegetable. The answer is almost always the same, no matter who takes the test. There are reasons for maladaptive behavior such as suicide, it isn't a no-strings-attached choice.

[Robert Tulip]

My problem with the total of all unknowns is that this is the territory of superstition and everything-goes. It's the ultimate fallback point when making propositions that are doomed false. The word karma holds much of this mystique from how I view it. I've encountered many ideas grounded in what we do know, with critical premises based in what we don't know. I can accept a word that crosses this boundary in an explanatory fashion as long as there's no propositional agenda that relies too heavily on the "unknown" portion of the word's definition.

You are misinterpreting in an understandable way. The total of unknowns is restricted to things that are scientifically possible, and does not include things that are not possible. For example, we know virgin birth is not possible, so it is wrong to use 'lack of knowledge' as an excuse to argue that such a superstition may be possible. This is following Kant in placing religion within the limits of reason. You are right that karma has traditionally been used as a superstitious term, with Hindu ideas of reincarnation as newt or bacterium etc as punishment for misdeeds. I am trying to strip the word karma of this mythic baggage by using it as a scientific term for destiny.

RT: "I came across an interesting example in Islam, where many people do not wear seatbelts while driving because they think that their kismet is a ticket from Allah determining when their number is up, and that wearing a seatbelt indicates a lack of faith in the almighty."
If we wait a few centuries, will that mindset be slowly filtered out of our gene pool?

Genetics operates at a much slower pace than cultural evolution. To some extent, humanity has transcended genetics because we are able to use compassion to enable life for some who would have died in earlier times. The meme of Islamic fatalism is likely to evolve and mutate much faster than the gene pool.

RT: "No, you misunderstand here. Jung is not defining God as what we don't know, but following Paul (Romans 1:19) in saying God is manifest in nature, defined as all in all. "I still do not understand. Why not just call it nature? I can't see how Jung would come to use the word god unless he took all of nature and added a dash of the unknown, much like how I view gaia or mother earth. I wouldn't be against someone describing nature as god, but if you give them an inch, they take a mile. The use of the word would draw resistance whether there should be any or not. It isn't necessary.

The difference between nature and God, as I see it, is that the idea of God is the way humans imbue nature with meaning and purpose. It is about forming a spiritual vision of the connectedness of the universe, and of ideal goals which we can use for reconciliation and improvement. Hence God is a construction which humans apply to the universe. This idea is a development of the work of German theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg, who justifies the Christian trinity by saying the Father is only the Father in relation to the Son, and does not exist apart from the Son and the Spirit. This constructivism within Christianity does not mean that God is not real, rather it says that we need to adapt to the Father through the Son in order to be saved. This is a Darwinian atheist reinterpretation of Christianity. Jung's point is that modern science has sought to restrict 'nature' to a descriptive term, but human engagement with the universe needs to see nature somehow as normative, and uses the idea of God for this purpose.

RT: "Again, following Paul's definition of God at 1 Corinthians 15:28 as all in all, Jung is claiming to see a unity in the totality of the cosmos." Can you explain this unity? If unity references something other than the sum of the parts, it necessarily references an unknown. It is also a more obscure concept, thus the reference is overlooked. I understand there is stuff that is unknown, but it is folly to make propositions based on that, as I'm sure you'll agree. If the word 'unity' references all things that are known but requires a different understanding of the universe, then please help me understand. I viscerally, emotionally understand where you're coming from, but when critically examining it, there is no truth to there being a unity of the cosmos other than hope in an explanation for a worldview without explanation. The unity I perceive that strikes me on a deeper level I realize is a conceptualization of the whole of the universe, and isn't grounded objectively. The cosmos is simply there, with or without the mental methods we use to understand it. Anything beyond that is unobservable, undetectable, and unknown, so shouldn't be used to support an agenda.

Starting from the observation that people are physically part of the cosmos, and so when we speak it is the cosmos speaking, the question here is whether our words are in tune with the source, or whether we have made our own ideas which buffer and distort a cosmic message. The claim from Christ is that cosmic identity is full of grace and truth, (cf John 1:14) but that human idolatry, by separating us from the source, has concealed the original love which characterises the unitary energy of life.

RT: "The trouble with Dawkins' criticism is that he presents a continuum ranging from extreme belief, where he wrongly places Jung, across to extreme reason, where he humbly says even he has doubts, implying that this continuum illustrates the path from delusion to enlightenment. However, Dawkins' implicit argument that we cannot perceive a unity in the totality - because that would be religious - strikes me as far from enlightened. Jung sees this religious 'baggage' as useful for the development of morality and human identity."I would be interested to see how this 'baggage' is used.

It is about recognising that integral relation between humanity and nature has reconciling and transforming qualities such as love, forgiveness and grace. The church has lost sight of these qualities because it sets its institutional attachments as more important than the message at its foundation. For example, Jesus says the truth will set you free, but the church is too fearful to detach itself from its delusions, and so wrongly argues that its delusions are true.

RT "Yes, in the different context of Plato's divided line, where knowledge of God is placed at the opposite end of the spectrum from where Dawkins puts it in The God Delusion. If Dawkins is having a sly dig at Plato here I think it backfires."
This is the first I've read about Plato's divided line. You'll have to explain further what you mean with regards to this line. Where in this line is the distinction between objective and subjective references in a modern sense?

My last post linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_of ... vided_line , a central idea from Plato's Republic. The wiki provides a good explanation, also relevant to the current discussion of Dan Barker's claim that Christian dogma is like a pyramid. Plato's explanation is vastly more lucid and coherent, with a real continuum from false belief through true belief to knowledge. Where Plato and Dawkins differ is that they put moral knowledge at opposite ends of the line. As in his analogy of the cave, Plato sees subjective impressions as delusory, while logical ideas are objective.

RT: "The point is that freedom is channelled within the boundaries of genetic adaptation. We are indeed free to behave randomly, but we choose not to because it is maladaptive."

I understand that, but you can certainly take it a step further than maladaptive behaviour control. I challenge you to give me an example of truly random free behaviour. Not guided by past experience or environment. A glimpse at how much we don't know of what factors influence our behaviour are those interesting tests that have you do a series of math problems, then pick a random vegetable. The answer is almost always the same, no matter who takes the test. There are reasons for maladaptive behaviour such as suicide, it isn't a no-strings-attached choice.

The moral opprobrium attached to random behaviour is because it is so dangerous. As Dawkins notes, mutation is random, but almost all mutations fail. Only the non-random few mutants which prove adaptive survive. Eggs and sperm match up somewhat randomly, within the bounds of those sperm which are quickest, but comparatively few of these fertilisations succeed in passing on their own combination to a next generation. Whether or not there is an unknown determinism behind events, our feeling of freedom is part of our fate, and if we choose to act as though we can't influence our destiny then that will produce a very different result from people who think they are free.

[Interbane]

Oops, didn't see your reply here Robert, sorry. I'll get back to you, perhaps tomorrow.

[Interbane]

RT: "The total of unknowns is restricted to things that are scientifically possible, and does not include things that are not possible."

You mean to say, for what you're proposing, rather than in general. In general, use of the word "unknown" is subject to scrutiny as it references future knowledge, which should necessarily be true. On the other hand, it may reference what we "know" to be false. I understand what you're saying with what you're proposing however.

RT: "I am trying to strip the word karma of this mythic baggage by using it as a scientific term for destiny."

You'll strip the baggage according to who's definition? Your own alone, I'd wager, even though I understand what you mean and will agree with it. Why not use terminology with less baggage so you aren't misunderstood?

RT: "The difference between nature and God, as I see it, is that the idea of God is the way humans imbue nature with meaning and purpose."

So in this sense, god wouldn't be real at all. It would only be a lens through which we understand the world. A human construct perhaps, useless without a human brain.

RT: "Only the non-random few mutants which prove adaptive survive."

I believe even beneficial(thus controversial) mutations are random.

RT: "Whether or not there is an unknown determinism behind events, our feeling of freedom is part of our fate, and if we choose to act as though we can't influence our destiny then that will produce a very different result from people who think they are free."

I agree, we should maintain the illusion of free will. I do believe that it is just an illusion, and the universe is deterministic.

[Robert Tulip]

RT: "The total of unknowns is restricted to things that are scientifically possible, and does not include things that are not possible."You mean to say, for what you're proposing, rather than in general. In general, use of the word "unknown" is subject to scrutiny as it references future knowledge, which should necessarily be true. On the other hand, it may reference what we "know" to be false. I understand what you're saying with what you're proposing however.

Hi Interbane, thanks for continuing this conversation. Looking again at my comment, I see it as a general axiom. 'Things that are scientifically possible' means things that are in accordance with the natural laws of the universe, laws of which our limited human knowledge provides only a partial glimpse. On this basis, pre-modern myths which have been disproved by empirical findings are not part of 'the totality of unknowns', although their mythic content is separate from their empirical validity. So the idea of God as Zeus tossing thunderbolts is not part of 'the totality of unknowns' even though Zeus continues to have all sorts of cultural resonance and meaning.

RT: "I am trying to strip the word karma of this mythic baggage by using it as a scientific term for destiny."You'll strip the baggage according to who's definition? Your own alone, I'd wager, even though I understand what you mean and will agree with it. Why not use terminology with less baggage so you aren't misunderstood?

I accept the definition of karma at the wikipedia site: "that which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect." I don't think we have another word that captures this meaning. Stripping baggage primarily involves skepticism about traditional folk beliefs in reincarnation.

RT: "The difference between nature and God, as I see it, is that the idea of God is the way humans imbue nature with meaning and purpose."So in this sense, god wouldn't be real at all. It would only be a lens through which we understand the world. A human construct perhaps, useless without a human brain.

Calling God a construction does not mean God is not real, except by the traditional superstitious supernatural mentality. If we say God is love then we mean a divine energy is present in all instances of love, not that an entity is miraculously causing people to love each other. As I noted earlier in the interpretation of the trinity by Pannenberg , the father is not the father without the son and vice versa, so divinity within the universe is a function of the existence of entities which are the image of divinity. As Pannenberg's article God's Presence in History puts it, "it is in history itself that divine revelation takes place, and not in some strange Word arriving from some alien place and cutting across the fabric of history."

RT: "Only the non-random few mutants which prove adaptive survive."I believe even beneficial(thus controversial) mutations are random.

I think you misunderstand evolution here. A mutation is adaptive (ie it survives) only when it is as suited to its niche as the non-mutant. The niche has specific non-random features to which the mutant must attune.

RT: "Whether or not there is an unknown determinism behind events, our feeling of freedom is part of our fate, and if we choose to act as though we can't influence our destiny then that will produce a very different result from people who think they are free."I agree, we should maintain the illusion of free will. I do believe that it is just an illusion, and the universe is deterministic.

I agree, although the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is interpreted as claiming otherwise. The HUP is seen by some as a refutation of Laplace's Demon, the claim that "We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes." Heisenberg was the first to show that this problem is in principle insoluble for science because of the observer effect. However, it is entirely wrong to say that because we cannot know the position and direction of a particle, that the particle does not actually have a unique position and momentum. It is just that we finite creatures cannot know it. People often equate truth with knowledge, whereas I would argue truth is a noumenal reality independent of human knowledge. Heisenberg did not show that the universe is indeterministic, only that it is indeterministic for science.

Heisenberg is pulled over by a policeman whilst driving down a motorway, the policeman gets out of his car, walks towards Heisenberg's window and motions with his hand for Heisenberg to wind the window down, which he does. The policeman then says 'Do you know what speed you were driving at sir?', to which Heisenberg responds 'No, but I knew exactly where I was.

[Interbane]

RT: "So the idea of God as Zeus tossing thunderbolts is not part of 'the totality of unknowns' even though Zeus continues to have all sorts of cultural resonance and meaning."

Speaking on scrutinizing the 'unknown'; I didn't have in mind the limitations you're speaking of when I wrote the word. Do we 'know' that Zeus does not exist, and does not toss thunderbolts? With how much rigidity do you hold the idea of unknowns, even given this response is a tangent? It is a tangent, I understand your earlier posts as I've said.

RT: "I accept the definition of karma at the wikipedia site: "that which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect." I don't think we have another word that captures this meaning. Stripping baggage primarily involves skepticism about traditional folk beliefs in reincarnation."

The wikipedia site goes on a great deal further than what you've quoted. A majority of it is the baggage we're speaking of. If you strip the baggage, there's not much left to the word.

wiki: "Karma is also considered to be a spiritually originated law. Many Hindus see God's direct involvement in this process, while others consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma."

Natural laws of causation. I can't think of another word. On the other hand, I don't think it likely that you could strip the word karma down to that definition alone. There's simply too much baggage.

RT: "If we say God is love then we mean a divine energy is present in all instances of love"

Parsimony applies against such propositions. Love is love, why imbue it with more unnecessarily? What would god not be? Would he not be hate? Is there a limit to what he is?

RT: "I think you misunderstand evolution here. A mutation is adaptive (ie it survives) only when it is as suited to its niche as the non-mutant. The niche has specific non-random features to which the mutant must attune."

You must make the distinction here that the creature is different from it's environment. The environment may well have constants(what you call non-random), but the mutations from generation to generation of creature are still random. Offspring with mutations that lend it more survival capability are still offspring with random mutations. It is just that those random mutations are more suited to the environment than other random mutations. I'm using the word random here in a generic sense, not in a non-deterministic sense.

RT: "However, it is entirely wrong to say that because we cannot know the position and direction of a particle, that the particle does not actually have a unique position and momentum. It is just that we finite creatures cannot know it."


That would have been my reply.

RT: "However, Dawkins' implicit argument that we cannot perceive a unity in the totality - because that would be religious - strikes me as far from enlightened. Jung sees this religious 'baggage' as useful for the development of morality and human identity."

Too many tangents. This was along the same thread that I had a problem with originally, and now you've made yourself clearer. The 'unity in the totality'; is that referring to more than the whole of the cycle of cause and effect? Is this similar to an "in addition to" proposal that seeks to piggyback a non-disprovable concept on a virtue?

[ZachSylvanus]

I think you misunderstand evolution here. A mutation is adaptive (ie it survives) only when it is as suited to its niche as the non-mutant. The niche has specific non-random features to which the mutant must attune.

This would be a good time to remember John 8:7.

Mutations are selected for only when both they and the rest of the phenotype are adaptive for a particular niche. If a particular random mutation bestows some measure of fitness on its organism through one system, but some other mutation evolves which lessens fitness, not even a mutation which fits your "definition" would survive. And as Interbane pointed out, just because the environment in which your hypothetical mutation arises in is non-random (it's not really) doesn't mean that the mutation itself is non-random; it's still random. All mutations, beneficial/neutral/detrimental arise randomly.

[Robert Tulip]

I think you misunderstand evolution here. A mutation is adaptive (ie it survives) only when it is as suited to its niche as the non-mutant. The niche has specific non-random features to which the mutant must attune.

This would be a good time to remember John 8:7.

Meaning, I assume, that discussion of adaptivity breaches a taboo regarding casting the first stone?

Mutations are selected for only when both they and the rest of the phenotype are adaptive for a particular niche. If a particular random mutation bestows some measure of fitness on its organism through one system, but some other mutation evolves which lessens fitness, not even a mutation which fits your "definition" would survive. And as Interbane pointed out, just because the environment in which your hypothetical mutation arises in is non-random (it's not really) doesn't mean that the mutation itself is non-random; it's still random. All mutations, beneficial/neutral/detrimental arise randomly.

Zach, I think you misunderstand the point here. Controlling for the phenotype, a mutation succeeds when it confers marginal evolutionary advantage. Mutations arise randomly, but their success is definitely not random, rather it reflects their attunement to the niche. If you have what the niche demands you will thrive. It is like in a game of rummy where one player picks up and discards randomly while the others choose according to the purpose of the game to build runs and sets. The random player's hand 'mutates' according to chance, while the purposive player's hands 'mutate' towards the adaptive niche of winning the game. Random play might win one game in a million. The overall point here is that the adaptive niche can be equated to what Christians traditionally called the telos. This term has been corrupted by creationism, but should retain a scientific meaning as the end which will enable flourishing. I returned to this thread to look at the conversation with Interbane on love, which I see as encapsulating the human telos.

Richard Dawkins summarises the issue on randomness as follows:

Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do-hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging-whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It's because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming.

[Interbane]

RT: "The random player's hand 'mutates' according to chance, while the purposive player's hands 'mutate' towards the adaptive niche of winning the game."

I don't see there being species that mutate toward anything. It is apparently random. I know it's only an analogy, but the problem is that there aren't two agents as such. There are two topics of discussion we're touching on here, however, and that might be the cause of the misunderstanding. The mutations are random, but the evolutionary process is not random. The deterministic factor is the environment, not the organism.

RT: "The overall point here is that the adaptive niche can be equated to what Christians traditionally called the telos."

If the end is reached by random means, then correspondence to purpose is only coincidental. It seems teleological perspectives here are merely shorthand, disregarding all the non-purposeful(non-beneficial) mutations and focusing only on those that are beneficial.

I would say I've never read about teleology, so I don't have a firm grasp of the subject.

[johnson1010]

I am here to address the original question, which it now seems will be off the topic of discussion. My appologies.

Agnosticism asserts that you should not believe in things for which there is no proof. The term has been co-opted to mean uncertainty about God, but that is not the intention of the word. It is possible to be agnostic about the chupacabra for instance.

Obviously the word has been used differently in contemporary debate but i dont think that is a reason to perpetuate it's mis-use. You might say coincidence, when what you really meant to say was coincide.

As such, agnosticism of God, or Gods is a firm stance that says explicitly, "There is no satisfactory evidence for this claim, so i reject it."

It is a refusal to take things on faith. By extension, it is reasonable to say most atheists are Agnostic.