Talk:Agnosticism/Archive 2

Logic and neutrality
The neutrality dispute is about the capitalization of God. I'll wait for that to sort itself out before making the necessary changes and removing the header. As far as the logic part tho, theres no need to wait in replacing innaccuracy w acceptable logic. That has nothing to do w POV Jack 02:44, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Wow, this was amazingly hypocritical. Over on talk:atheism you criticise me about reverting things, and then only a single minute later you come over here and revert the logic section right back to where it was at the start of our argument again. I'm reverting it back to Banno's version, and leaving the NPOV header since this is clearly connected to the situation over on the atheism article. Bryan 03:33, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It appears you don't know the difference between an edit and a revert. Perhaps I misjudged you. Jack 03:36, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * As I noted in atheism I agree with Jack about the capitalisation of God. But the issue is trivial. I’m annoyed that this petty dispute has spread here. Jack, I have better things to do, and you do to. Let them have their small god. Or just capitalise every second God, and leave it as a memorial to Wiki foolishness. Whatever you will agree to as a compromise, but keep this ridiculous debate out of Agnosticism.Banno 21:06, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree this should be decided elsewhere. Thank you for your tact and wisdom. Jack 21:46, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Follwing suit of strong atheism and weak atheism, I've created entries for strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism, mostly in response to confusion on both sides regarding where the line between atheist/agnostic is drawn. (The articles would be longer, but any further discussion of the varagies vagaries would be better placed in Agnosticism itself.) -Sean 06:59, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Talk: splitting
''The following discussion was related to me incorrectly splitting up the talk page into six sub-pages, one for each section. Thanks for fixing that Bryan.'' - Nanobug 16:15, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Splitting up the talk page like this might not be a good idea. None of those subpages are on my watchlist, if I'd been out of town or something for a few days I would have missed this. Is there a guideline about this sort of thing anywhere? Bryan 01:03, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, but surely this page is on your watchlist? However, if you wish, move the content of the most recent section (Logic and neutrality) back to this page, as that seems to be where the latest discussion is happening. Nanobug 03:33, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The new pages are problematic - they do not link to a Wiki article. Better to simply archive old stuff, as is the wiki standard. Banno 06:19, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Just did so. Bryan 15:53, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The logic of Agnosticism
Understanding the position adopted by agnostics is easier if one understands the way in which logicians treat statements of belief or knowledge. Such statements are not about facts, but about other statements. For example, god exists is a statement about god, but John believes that god exists is about the statement god exists. In the jargon of the logician, statements about other statements are second-order predicates.

There are two possible statements one can make regarding the existence of gods – either god exists or god does not exist. Since someone can either agree or disagree with each, there are a total of four possibilities.

one can:
 * agree with the statement: 		god exists
 * not agree with the statement:		god exists
 * agree with the statement: 		god does not exist
 * not agree with the statement: 	god does not exist

Joining these with a conjunction, one can derive four possibilities:


 * 1) The theist agrees with the statement god exists and does not agree with the statement god does not exist
 * 2) The strong atheist does not agree with the statement god exists and agrees with the statement god does not exist
 * 3) The agnostic does not agree with the statement god exists and does not agree with the statement god does not exist
 * 4) One cannot coherently agree with the statement god exists and with the statement god does not exist, since this is a logical contradiction.

Agnostics vary in their reasons for agreeing with (3). If one holds that knowledge of god is impossible, it follows that one will not agree with either, since each assumes that one can have some knowledge of god. It is not coherent to believe in god and yet to claim to have no knowledge of god, since the belief at the least implies that one knows god exists. Other agnostics simply reserve their judgment, not claiming that knowledge of the existence of god is impossible, but perhaps claiming that there is insufficient evidence one way or the other. Agnosticism is thus to some degree independent of atheism/theism.

One can draw a distinction between belief and knowledge leading some to claiming agnosticism is about knowledge, while atheism/theism is about belief. Since knowledge implies belief, one cannot intelligibly know some proposition to be true and not also believe that proposition is true. Belief does not imply knowledge, but knowledge does imply belief. However claiming to believe something but not know it puts one in a curious position—usually one accuses others of having a belief that is not knowledge.

(A more formal form of the argument is presented at Talk:Agnosticism/Archive_1) Banno 20:19, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The above is junk. Repairs must be made. I have made my suggestion, which was reverted by Bryan. Perhaps my version isn't the best, but this one is riddled with falsehoods, and cannot be present as it now stands. Sam Spade 23:52, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you adopting such a reasonable and considerate tone. Perhaps you might present here why you think the argument is junk? A simple list of the falsehoods contained therein would be most enlightening. But perhaps you are just trolling? Banno 01:44, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * 1) "There are two possible statements one can make regarding the existence of gods &#8211; either god exists or god does not exist" This is a False dichotomy.
 * 2) "One cannot coherently agree with the statement god exists and with the statement god does not exist, since this is a logical contradiction." Yes, one can. Embrace of contridiction is a central aspect of Buddhism, particularly Zen Buddhism
 * 3) "Since knowledge implies belief..." No, it doesn't. In fact it is common these days to disbelieve facts, and even to fail to accept ones owns existance, or other legitimate sources of information. This is a philosophy closely intertwined with post-modernism and existentialism. These people often dispute objective reality entirely.
 * 4) "usually one accuses others of having a belief that is not knowledge" Humbug. I'm not interested in what you think other people usually do. If you have any verification of any of this, I would be made most jolly by your references and citations and references.
 * 5) All of this is original research, and is thus unnacceptable. If you have some evidence to the contrary, let me know.
 * 6) Obey wikiquette I find your above insinuation unacceptable. Assume the best, do not insinuate the worst. Thank you. Sam Spade 02:52, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Four of your comments might be considered as potential flaws in the argument; however:
 * 1) A false dilemma would only occur if there were other possibilities besides the ones cited. Since the statement in question is “either god exists or god does not exist”, in order to carry your point you must present at least one other possibility. I can’t see a way of doing this without denying the law of the excluded middle, but if you have a third possibility, I’d love to see it.
 * 2) Embracing contradiction is part of Zen Buddhism, but coherence is not one of their goals. If one wishes to be coherent, one is obliged to reject contradiction, no? Is that not what was stated? Do you think that arguments presented in the Wiki should not attempt to be coherent? What sort of logic do you suggest we use, then?
 * 3) I would have thought it obvious that the things we know form a subset of the things we believe. This is what “implies” means. Perhaps you would assist by presenting, for example, a case where something is said to be known but not believed? Perhaps a reference to one of the post-modernist articles you allude to would do this?
 * 4) All that is meant, and necessary for the point, is that to say that someone has a belief that is not knowledge is to disparage that belief. Since this is a point about language use, I fail to see how a citation would be of assistance here. I suspect you have misunderstood, and so I must agree with you that the sentence needs re-writing.

Although I am flattered, I cannot take credit for the argument. I recall it from my natural theology studies of over twenty years ago, and had thought it a commonplace. But I cannot find reference to it - Perhaps someone else might be able to locate the source? In any event, I would have hoped that the apparent validity of the argument was sufficient for it to be included in the encyclopaedia. Is this not the case? Is it necessary that the argument not only be valid, but also authorised in some way? That might result in very long and tedious articles.

What is it you think I have insinuated? It does not appear that you have supported your accusation that the argument is “riddled with falsehoods”. If you are not trolling, then I suggest you provide some more support for your first three criticisms. I will not attempt to edit or re-insert the argument in the mean time, since if you are trolling, this would result in another mindless edit war. If, however, you do not back up your claims, I might, time permitting, edit the argument and restore it. In the mean time, we would both benefit by knowing what other readers think of the validity of the argument.

Banno 07:19, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * "I would have hoped that the apparent validity of the argument was sufficient for it to be included in the encyclopaedia. Is this not the case? Is it necessary that the argument not only be valid, but also authorized in some way" This brings up some interesting points. First, the argument is bunk. Second, theoretical validity is not good enough. There does need to be some verification possible. References to how and why are presented above, in my last edit. In regards to your last paragraph, I disagree w it almost entirely, and while it would be rude and contentious to go over each and every aspect, I will do you the favor of attempting to answer your questions below. I will be watching, and if you continue not to be able to understand my objections, you might like to review them (and the links) more carefully. Sam Spade 23:23, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * 1)  Agnosticism is one. Also, there is the problem of the definition of God. How do you define "God"? How do I? How does everybody? Is there any real consensus?
 * 2) All I was pointing out is that there are indeed people, theoretically reasonable people, who do not, as you say. strive for "coherence". They should be acknowledged.
 * 3) I like to call it "factual relativism", Others call it many other things, from "cultural relativism" to "postmodernism" to "subjective reality", but it is defined best as objecting to objective reality. I don't have a handy example of it because I avoid these sorts of dubious informations (I am an absolutist), but I have no fear that some such example is not readily available. Sam Spade 23:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You will be watching? Was that a threat, Sam?

Let’s have a look at your replies. I noticed that you are down from the original six points to three.
 * 1) Are you claiming that agnostics think god both exists and does not exist? If so, you fail to understand either the nature of agnosticism, or the nature of logic. I can only assume that you are making such a lame claim as a rhetorical point. Think you should give up on this one, Sam.
 * 2) I agree. But why do you think that it is appropriate to discuss such folk in the article on agnosticism? Would it also be appropriate to discuss them in, say, logic or theology? What is the relevance of your point to this article?
 * 3) You have not substantiated your claim with an example of something which is known but not believed.  What is the relevance of post-modernism to agnosticism? Why should the article on agnosticism discuss deconstruction?

Your position is so silly that I can only assume that your aim is simply to incite disagreement. You have failed to demonstrate your claim “that the argument is bunk”, so now you are relying on an appeal to authority. No doubt you do not think of yourself as a troll. Possibly you see yourself as “confounding unbelievers” or some such. But if it looks like a troll and smells like a troll…

I really don’t want to play your game, Sam. Your stomping around is counterproductive – you’ve succeeded in bullying the authors of atheism into removing all mention of God, for heaven’s sake, making the article look ridiculous. I don’t see much point in doing work in this area, given the present company. Banno 18:46, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that the above communications have been a disservice to our readers and fellow editors. I furthermore agree that it is time for you to take a hiatus for rest and introspection. Good day sir. Sam Spade 20:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(For anyone with an interest, Sam has continued this discussion on my talk page. Banno 00:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC))

User:Banno

I am sorry for offending you. I think I was less tactful than I might have been in my description of the "logic of atheism" section. Furthermore, I apologise for referring to you as an "academic" on your talk page. I meant that in only the most general of terms. I resolve to try harder to be polite, I understand how important that is here. Lets focus on making this a better page, and not on personal misunderstandings or POV's. I would be happy if you stayed, and between the two of us we can perhaps create a better "logic of agnosticism" section (Logic is a favorite subject of mine) or at least resolve that it is best to leave it vague, with useful links for the reader to explore. Again, I apologise for any misunderstandings. Sam Spade 01:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Sam, how can we work together to ‘create a better “logic of agnosticism” section’ when you cannot tell me what, apart from the lack of authority, is wrong with it? You say you think it vague – in what way? Do you now wish to re-install it, despite the lack of a reference? Perhaps you will understand if I decline your offer.Banno 19:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are talking about. This line of communication is broken, and this conversation is over. Sam Spade 20:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Another approach to that logic section
In my experience here on Wikipedia, there is no problem of any size or complexity that can't be solved with an elabourate and colourful table of some kind. :) How about using something like this to try clarifying the various positions that people can take on these issues?

This is overkill, of course, but I figured it might be a good idea to cover every permutation and then see what people think about it. Bryan 01:06, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Brilliant. This is MUCH better, and is a solid step in the right direction. I'm anxious to see/work on the text to go along with this, and have some theoretical concerns, such as the importance that we not be judgemental/negative in our description of those who may hold contridictory beliefs, as well as the care that we utilize when employing the terms "God, god, gods, and diety/dieties" so as not to provide innacurate information. Anyhow, I am heartilly in favor of what you have done, thank you. Sam Spade 04:46, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, calling the last row and the last column contradictory shouldn't be all that controversial since they basically boil down to "I believe A and not-A" :) The strong atheism/strong agnosticism one I'm very unsure of, hence the question mark. I can almost imagine holding both those views at once in a non-contradictory manner (update: I managed to imagine it a few minutes after writing this, wasn't as hard as it seemed :), but it depends on drawing some fine distinctions between belief and knowledge. Bryan 04:59, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd love to hear you explain that fine distinction, as I can't fathom it. This has always been a feature of my argument against atheism. It is a central error of Atheism (IMO), that one cannot intellegently claim certainty against Gods existance. The very nature of God implies an esoteric aspect not subject to disproval, much like astrology is said to have. While inductively someone might claim to rationally assume against the existance of God, deductively there is no disproving him. Sam Spade 05:50, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Heh. IMO it's a central error of Sam Spade that all atheists do claim certainty. :) But that's not really relevant at the moment, because the cell of the table under discussion is a "strong atheist" cell where certainty is indeed claimed. How about this analogy: "There aren't any cupcakes inside black holes. I don't know that for a fact, because I've never been able to look inside one and don't think I ever will, but I'll dispute anyone who claims that there might be." Such a person believes that he can never know the answer (he's a strong cupcake-agnostic), but he's nevertheless quite confident about what the answer is (there are no black hole cupcakes). One may make the case that his confidence is unwarranted, but that doesn't change the fact that he does indeed believe that there are no cupcakes in there. How's that sound? Bryan 06:07, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Perfect, I agree completely with your analogy. I make the case that the confidence is unwarranted. I think this subtlety, this question of contradiction aught to be discussed within the article, fairly of course. Perhaps a sentence or so presenting each interpretation, and the significance thereof would be appropriate. Again, good editing, and I am anxious to see some of the text you would present in regards to this chart (shall I assume we are unanimously in favor of it? ) as well as what myself and others will add. Sam Spade 06:30, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree that these subtle distinctions are important to describe in the article, as well as the potential controversy over some of them. I'll tinker with the wording of the table a bit here first, though; some of those headers are exceptionally large and could use trimming down (if possible without losing meaning). It should be possible to incorporate a lot of Banno's previous work too, I'll ponder ways to splice it all together nicely. Bryan 23:49, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I think a brief review of the preceeding section of this talk will reveal a plethora of objections to the previous logic of agnosticism section. I am profoundly dubious of what portion of it would be useful, and I heartilly encourage you to review said objections. Also, I feel that the (possibly contridictory) mention within the table is vital, although the exact wording of it is quite flexable. Maybe just a asterisk, question mark, or some such. The "with certainty" is also vital IMO. Jeep up the good work, Sam Spade 00:00, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(dropping indentation back to the left margin)

I still think there are a few things in there that will be handy to reuse, such as the paragraph on the distinction between belief and knowledge and a little discussion of how agnosticism is "belief about knowledge". The stuff I removed from the table a few minutes ago was removed purely to see if I could make the table a little smaller physically; there'll be a lot of text accompanying this table where those details can be described in more depth. I'm just dropping by Wikipedia for a few minutes right now, though, so I wasn't going to get into writing all that up until later today at the earliest. We'll see how it goes. :) Bryan 00:08, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

copied from page
"One can draw a distinction between belief and knowledge leading leading those who believe knowledge of God is not possible to claim agnosticism is about knowledge, while atheism/theism is about belief. Since knowledge implies belief, they might say one cannot intelligibly know some proposition to be true and not also believe that proposition is true. They would say belief does not imply knowledge, but knowledge does imply belief. However claiming to believe something but not know it puts one in a curious position in their eyes. Many people are quite comfortable with having belief without knowledge however."

I have been over this a few times, and while I don't see it needing to be entirely removed, and I have NPOV'ed it repeatedly, I am still deeply disatisfied with the assumptions it makes, and the lack of opposing POV. Not only do I not agree w much of what it contains, but the information it contains is unverifiable (isn't it?) and in some ways is misleading. I very much want to see this balanced with a non-agnostic POV. It is actually very easy to know something is true, and yet not believe it. One may know that they are going to physically die, but still not believe it. Its unnaceptable to them, unimaginable. There are many variations. Sam Spade 21:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * A cogent point, though whether it's easy to have knowledge without belief is possibly debateable. :) I'll see if I can think of some way to work this in. Bryan 22:18, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

belief
Sam & Bryan, belief has more than one sense. One can believe something in the sense of having confidence or faith in it. One can also believe a statement in the sense of assenting to its truth. The two senses are distinguished in every dictionary I have consulted. The text cut from the article uses belief in the latter sense. Sam’s counter argument uses it in the former sense.

Such a simple confusion should not have taken place in the development of this article. That it has occurred says much about the quality of the editing.

I invite you to take another look at the table you have constructed. Does this nomenclature exist elsewhere, or is it “original research”?

Banno 09:18, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I have always used belief in the "assenting to truth" sense when working on this article, myself. As for the nomenclature it seems very hard to find an authoratative source on this stuff so I've focused mainly on trying to keep it consistent rather than authoratative. Feel free to suggest other terms for these positions, if others are in more widespread use in philosophical circles. Bryan 18:06, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see the subtlety banno is introducing to be useful here, but I am perfectly willing to entertain variant wordings if they are roundly agreed to. Belief is a word traditionally utilized for this subject however, and no matter the definition used, it seems to me to imply a certain lack of certainty, but as is said in the article, the debate over objective truth is not one we are intending to solve here ;). Simply fairly depicting the fundamental opposing POV's is all I personally expect from us. Sam Spade 20:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah. Now I remember why I decided not to work on this page. That a word is used with one meaning in the article, and with another in a supposed counterexample, is a "useless subtlety". Banno 20:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that perhaps the biggest problem this particular article suffers from, especially in a Wikipedia environment, is that the term "Agnosticism" has been used for so many different philosophies over the years by so many different people and there's no one central authority that one can go to for clarification (as I've occasionally described it, unbelievers don't have a "Book of Nothing" they can quote from :). Perhaps it might be a good idea to try considering various uses of the term separately? For example, add a section titled "Huxley's agnosticism" that focuses specifically and explicitly on the stuff that Huxley was talking about, a section titled "Agnosticism as belief about the possibility of knowledge", a section titled "Agnosticism as 'atheism lite' in western society", etc. Then, once the various sections are fleshed out more, perhaps try to find a better synthesis of them to serve as an overview of agnosticism as a whole. Bryan 08:41, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Be Bold! I plan on doing very little myself, I'm reasonably satisfied w the article as is ;) Sam Spade 08:59, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe on the weekend, when I've got more time. Fortunately I have no Wikipedia access when I'm at work, otherwise I'd spend all my time on Wikipedia and get fired. Then I'd run out of money and lose my net access, and have no Wikipedia at all. :) Bryan 09:23, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Overview of Available Positions Regarding Belief
So, the table you disliked has now been entirely deleted. Where would you suggest that it go instead, Banno? A cursory look through some of the other related articles leads me to think it might fit well in theism, which is currently just a big list of various related types of theism and has agnosticism/atheism stuff in the see also; the table would fit in with that fairly well IMO. Bryan 19:19, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I think the table is essentially muddle-headed. A taxonomy of belief will not catch all the possible permutations, nor will it rule out the falsehoods that have at times been propagated here (I’m thinking of the claims that Kant and Ayer held to some form of agnosticism). I was also unable to see what the purpose of the table was. It is obscure: the vertical dimension deals in third order predicates of the form “X believes that Y can know that P” – far to obscure to be useful, I count 32 possible permutations. Half of the content cells of the table contain contradictions – I don’t see a point in including them. Banno 01:09, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps a better approach would be to place the possibilities as first order predicates on one dimension and the taxonomy on the other:

Believes in god	   Does not believe in god	has knowledge of god	Etc Theist	            yes	              no	              yes Agnostic	     no	              no	              no Weak atheist	  and so on Callithumpian Whatever

As for where it belongs, I think it pretty clear that it needs to be in an article that sits above both theological knowledge and belief. Why not put it in its own page, and link from the other pages? But for my money, I don’t see a great deal of worth in it. Banno 01:09, May 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * I like it alot, but I will mention that it wasn't quite accurate, failing to mention the contridiction of an atheist who doesn't believe the existance of God to be provable or disprovable. Sam Spade 04:38, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything inherently contradictory in someone who doesn't believe in something that he thinks is not provable or disprovable. The Invisible Pink Unicorn comes to mind as a good example. :) Bryan 05:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * As does the vital distinction between denial, and lack of support/belief ;) Sam Spade 05:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

new edits
I'll be going over it w a fine tooth comb. Sam Spade 23:18, 2 May 2004 (UTC)


 * They seem overall to be good, outside of the introduction, and the loss of that marvelrous table. Where would the table go? Sam Spade 23:24, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Knowledge and belief
On the edits by Sam and Bryan:


 * Since knowledge implies belief, one might say one cannot intelligibly know some proposition to be true and not also believe that proposition is true... The reverse can also sometimes be true, however; for example, one may know that they are going to physically die but still not believe it because it is unacceptable or unimaginable.

This paragraph is faulty, since the first sentence is contradicted by the last. I'll leave it up to others to decide what to do with it. The reintroduction of a range of weasel terms was probably inevitable, but to have a paragraph that contradicts itself is not acceptable. Banno 06:13, May 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a little contradictory, but not fundamentally so IMO; it's describing a variety of different positions one can take on these matters, and some of those positions happen to disagree with each other. The first one you list above is that one might believe that "you can't know X is true without believing X is true", and the second shows an example where that belief might be false. I'm still short on time tonight so I don't want to dig myself back into this issue just yet, but if the paragraph survives until tomorrow I'll try to find some better way of wording it. Bryan 05:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Table Suggestion
I think that a table is a good idea, but it should be used to help explain the difference between faith and proof, since that seems to always be at the center of any depate on Agnosticism. I propose the following chart:

the '(?)' are terms in spots that I didn't know a good term for, and so made one up. I'd like some suggestions for those spots.

Either way, I'd like to see what people think of useing this chart. CBDroege 3 May 2004, 0234


 * Chris, I declined previously to add comment because, as I&#8217;ve already said, I don&#8217;t see a point to the table. But since no one else has commented, I&#8217;ll throw in my two bits &#8211; This was a valiant effort. It is an improvement. In essence, I think the possible range of beliefs is too great to be covered by such a table, and that in part is why you wind up with (?) in so many of the boxes. But a nice try, anyhow. Banno 06:34, May 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Since it's a step in the right direction, at least, how about we try letting the Wikipedia Process work its magic and perhaps reduce some of the question marks? I'm going to copy this over into the theism article and see what the people over there think, as per my suggestion in, above. Better than letting it slip quietly away into talk archive oblivion, IMO. Bryan 05:10, 15 May 2004 (UTC)