Actually agnosts believe that human reason can theoretically tell whether or not there is a good, but that the jury is out. Ignosts are the ones who realize the limitations of human reason. See here.
So I’m surprised no one has made use of Occam’s razor yet… that really is the most obvious tool. Of course the more powerful arguments come out of ignosticism.
For that to be true you must assume that your senses are working correctly in reading what I orignally wrote for it is in principle plausable that they are different and that you not to see anything at all deduce my none existence. However in your reply I believe beyond reasonable doubt that you clearly understood what I intended.
But for the record you must believe your senses (in this case sight) are working correctly to know of my existence, I could be a mirage. There is no way around this since the existence of another person cannot be demonstrated a priori and thus an impossibility theorem cannot be created which leaves open the possibility of error and thus requires belief; this isn’t to say that belief is irrational but is necessary to hold either my existence or none existence; in this case it is clearly more rational to believe in my existence rather than my none existence.
Faith is, “believing the word of someone else to be true, regardless of how ludicrous the belief may be”. Faith is me telling you that unicorns exist, and you believing me, even though there is absolutely no evidence that such is the case. Faith is me telling you that government can provide better health care than the private sector, even though there is absolutely no evidence that such is the case. Faith is me telling you that God appeared to me and gave me the truth, even though there is absolutely no evidence that such is the case.
Reason is me observing reality, and drawing my own conclusions based on the facts. Reason says that there probably are not any unicorns, because there is no evidence that they exist. Reason says that there is no reason to believe government can provide better health care than the private sector, because there is no evidence that such is the case. Reason says that there probably is no true revealed religion, because all revealed religions are based on faith, the word of someone else that its true, but no real evidence otherwise.
That’s a completely pejorative distinction between faith and reason; consequently I’d argue I fall soley under reason even though I’m a Christian. Not only is it a priori pejorative it is not a meaningful distinction: as I pointed out in my previous post belief is necessary in all but Cartesian style truths.
Given your distinction I’d like to know what you think of one of the historic definitions of knowledge? Justified true belief.
As a Christian, you take the word of someone else to be fact. You have no other evidence that the Bible is the word of God. That would be faith, not reason.
I don’t know what “justified true belief” is, so I cannot comment on it.
Is faith a commitment? I used to believe that beliefs ought to be be supported, justified, or verified by evidence, logic, or whatever, but eventually I came aware of the logical quanderies that entails. So I decided to reject the goal entirely; so clearly I had not commited to it. In fact, I maintain that it is quite possible to not commit to anything, but to hold everything open to criticism. I don’t have any faith, at least in this sense.
I like this term. I’m an ignost with respect to natural rights, natural law, and objective ethics.
Substitute “objective ethics” for “God” and that is pretty much my position, at least on the conceptions of objective ethics I have seen so far.
EDIT: And this as well:
Here substitute “ought” or “objective ought” for “God.” Again, the parallels are striking. Everyone seems to mean something different by their oughts: divine command, legal edict, advice, approval/disapproval, something incoherent, or “You just ought to. Don’t ask why!”
It’s funny, because Hitchens and the like say this too and I bought into it for a while. The problem is, this just isn’t true, the consensus in this area amongst almost all scholars is that Jesus really did exist.
I’m not say this proves Christianity to be correct, although I believe that to be the case. Just, Hitches et al aren’t being particularly honest when they make such statements.
Woah, what? I guess we’d better write a whole bunch of psychological conditions off the books as nonsense then. Because, you know, Nash was seeing real people after all. (Interestingly, I heard the in “The Beautiful Mind” the way his illness was depicted was actually less dramatic than it actually was).
I thought he was seeing aliens?
It’s actually surprising to see someone else other than myself mentioning Ignosticism here, but the reference is appropriate.
I haven’t given a second look to either Agnosticism or Atheism since encountering Ignostic (or theological non-cognitivism, whichever one prefers) arguments, imo.
Always funny to see atheists commenting on the existence of God. Most people who are religious are religious because of their own experiences. Should people deny their own experiences as well? If you see a ghost but before you denied the existence of ghosts does that mean you can not believe your own experiences? Relying on what other people say happened, we do it all the time for all kinds of things. Some things you believe and some you don’t.
Just because you didn’t experience something or didn’t see it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Of course it does not mean it did not happen. And just because I have not seen unicorns, does not mean they do not exist. But, would you believe in unicorns if I told you they exist? What if the leader of your church told you they exist? And don’t you find it interesting that people generally are the religion that they are raised in? Please don’t tell me it is because they actually researched anything. I can guarantee you 99.99% of Christians have never researched the actual history of the Bible. The fact that it was put together by the Council of Nicea, the fact that they left out a bunch of books to form “Christianity” in their own eyes, etc., etc.
You’re right but this argument is so third graded. Flying spaghetti monster durr. Why is this even on mises when there are so many forums dedicated to this endless childishness elsewhere.
How is truth “third graded”? That is your problem if you think truth is childish, not mine.
I know that you exist. At least I know there’s a person who writes the posts signed ‘Physiocrat’ - or maybe there’s a pretty good AI program out there, capable of writing articulate English.
Anyway, if we were to meet face to face, I could confirm my knowledge of your existence. And for the time being I’m assuming you are a person, not a piece of software =P
I beg to disagree. Agnostics take the position that the ultimate nature of reality can’t be known (the things-in-themselves if you wish, can’t be known).
I’d say that’s a variety of agnosticism, with some semantic quibbling and positivism thrown in to make it look more fashionable.
Yeah, when you are a positivist troll, all your ‘arguments’ reduce to asking what the meaning of ‘meaning’ is. Congrats.
lmhalkjhs ef;aslkjhas asm,n asdkljsda
That should put an end to your line of bullshit. Should you fail to grasp the necessary validity of sensal data, you will be stealing the concept. And that’s a fallacy. And that kills your argument dead. So don’t even try it.
Now you get to demonstrate that there’s no distinction between someone with a chemical imbalance and one with. Go to it. You set yourself up for it. Now you’re screwed. You have the onus of proof here.
Yeah–it’s best that you tuck tail and run, little boy.
Rational trust is faith, BAAWA, don’t create neologisms to suit your purposes for there is a word already in the english language to describe what you are discussing.
It is not merely MY problem, it is EVERYBODY’s problem for everyone must make a decision as to the question of God - the entire thesis that it is MY problem is itself an answer, albeit a bad one, to the problem.
No, while it may prove his existence to himself, it does not prove his existence to you.
You really need to work on that before you ever speak on faith, and reason again.
At least we can agree on this.
For one thing, just because one has faith, does not mean that one does not hold out the article of faith to criticism. Furthermore, it is impossible not to commit to anything because there are certain matters, to use the terminology of William James in “The Will to Believe”, in which opinion on a certain matter is forced in which one cannot possibly not make a choice in the matter, in which the very statement: “I do not have an opinion on the matter” is a choice per se. While it may be trivial in questions as to academic disciplines, there are questions (e.g. the question of idealism, or realism) in which one must make a decision in the matter.
Because the mind is nothing but a phenomena that can be fully reduced to materialist explanations - you have the onus of proof here.
Proof for your statement of “all your arguments reduce to asking what the meaning of ‘meaning’ is” pending, of course :\