A few times I’ve referred to my view about “the God question” as “radical agnosticism.” I thought it might be fun to work through what this means.
For the purposes of this discussion, by “God” I shall mean follow Hart’s definition of God as “the one infinite source of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things” (The Experience of God, p. 30).
Next, I shall stipulate that our assertions about the world fall into two classes: those that take a truth-value in all possible worlds and those that take a truth-value only in the actual world. This is a contemporary version of “Hume’s Fork”: there are “relations of ideas”, “truths of reason”, analytic a priori claims and then there are “matters of fact”, “truths of fact,” synthetic a posteriori claims. (There are some reasons to be skeptical of this neat distinction but I’ll leave that aside for now.)
Whether or not God exists would therefore seem to be either a “truth of fact” or a “truth of reason”. I shall therefore now argue that it cannot be either.
Truths of fact are either directly observable phenomena or they are posited phenomena. (Though the boundary is strictly methodological and shifts over time.) But there are many presumptive truths of fact — claims with truth-value about the actual world — which we know have turned out to be false. And we know that because of empirical inquiry, and in particular, in the collection of techniques of inquiry called “science”. (I shall not insult anyone’s intelligence by assuming that there is a single thing called “the scientific method”).
Central to disciplined empirical inquiry, including and especially the sciences, is the act of measurement: intersubjectively verifiable assignments of quantitative variation across some interval of spatio-temporal locations. (It might be said that “the Scientific Revolution” is the historical period during which measurement slowly becomes the dominant conception of objectivity.)
But with that notion in place, it is perfectly clear that it is not even possible to take measurements of a perfectly transcendent being. A being that transcends all of space and time cannot be measured, which means that no claims about Him can be subjected to the tribunal of scientific inquiry. And hence no matters of fact about God can be verified one way or the other. That is to say that all claims about God that are restricted to the actual world have an indeterminate truth-value: they cannot be determined to be true or false
The epistemic situation is no better when we turn from a posteriori to a priori claims. In a priori claims, the tribunal is not science but logic, and the central epistemic concept is not measurability but provability. Can the existence of God be proven? Many have thought so!
But here two things must be pointed out: a proof, to be deductively valid, consists of re-organizing the information contained in the initial assumptions. One can generate a logically valid proof of the existence of God. (Gödel, for example, has a logically valid version of the Ontological Argument.) The process of proof-construction is not going to give you more information in the conclusion than was present in the premises.
Logic is limited in another important way: there are multiple logics. What can proved in one logic can be disproven in a different logic. It depends on the choice of logical system. Once you’ve chosen a logical system, and you’ve chosen some premises, then of course one can prove that God exists. But neither the premises nor the rules are “self-evident”, inscribed on the very face of reason or of reality, etc.
Hence we cannot determine that God exists or does not exist on the basis of logic alone, since provability is no more reliable here than measurability is.
On this basis, I conclude that it is not even possible for beings such as ourselves to assign any truth-value at all to the assertion that God exists. This yields a radical agnosticism. Whereas the moderate agnostic can accept the logical possibility of some future evidence or reasoning that would resolve the issue, the radical agnostic insists that beings with minds like ours are completely unable to resolve the issue at all.
Radical agnosticism is at the same time compatible with either utter indifference to the question of the existence of God (“apatheism”) or some quite definite stance (ranging from theism to pantheism to deism to atheism). All that radical agnosticism insists on here is that all definite stances on the God-question are leaps of faith — no matter what direction.
Complex is not the same thing as intelligent and mockery is not necessarily a sign of discernment.
😉
peace
Elizabeth (pbuh) has mentioned E Prime on a few occasions here. Can you rephrase your claim in that subset of the language in order to make it more clear what you mean?
Umm…that would be the same thing…
…or rather, a distinction without a difference…
No its a picture of the difference between necessity and contingency.
A truth of fact is contingent
Truth is necessary.
If you don’t understand the difference ask Neil
peace
Much like mindless cant isn’t a sign of discernment, FMM.
Try something else if you don’t like the conclusions made about your rubbish.
Glen Davidson
It’s not a claim it a definition.
Can you help me understand what you are asking by giving a definition of atheism in E Prime?
peace
I see you’re now at least admitting you have an argument. Now I just need you to also see that it’s bad and my work will be done here.
Off the top of my head I would say something like this
God reveals himself to himself as truth and recognizes himself as truth.
Does that help you Patrick?
peace
*rolls eyes*
Actually, you’re relating your interpretation of some document, so it is actually according to you.
Apparently it’s not a contingent property of John 14:6…
Actually, if you are relying on John 14:6 as the basis of your claim (as you insist you are above), then that is exactly what you’ve done. You’ve just stated that your god is contingent on the truth of the bible.
Oops…
And to boot, you then make the claim moot by begging the question: that the bible statement is from this god of yours in the first place and that is is truthful because your god is truthful, and you then point to John14:6 to demonstrate this…
Double ooops…
I’m surprised you don’t have to lie down after all that going round and round and round in circles with that pretzel logic of yours…
And you just dismantled the whole “necessary” nonsense the moment you referenced a bible passage. That would make you claim of “truth” a contingency.
ETA: Here’s the difference that you and folks like WJM don’t seem to be able to grasp. A necessity is automatic – like gravity. Failing to mass source is always, universally, necessary. Gravity is not contingent on the truth of some statement.
Your god…not so much. That you have to refer to some bible passage makes that inherent.
I have no problem with your conclusions. I fully expect that you mock and dismiss.
Apparently it’s all you have
quote:
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
(1Co 2:14)
end quote:
peace
On the contrary the truth of the Bible is contingent on the Truth and Faithfulness of God.
If God is Truth and Faithful we can trust that his word is true.
peace
Not taking that bet!!
Only in the sense that “Logos” means argument.
peace
Gee…wisdom of snake oil salesman…
“Let’s see…if I make an absurd claim, people will mock and dismiss it. I know! I’ll tell my followers that only those who are missing a *special snake oil component* will mock and dismiss such claims! That way the faithful will continue to buy my snake oil!”
Yawn…
L Ron Hubbard was particularly good at that shtick…
Apparently false claims are all that you have, including that contrary-to-the-evidence false accustion.
I have plenty to add, only not for someone who will never discuss anything but prefers instead to repeat useless tripe that he has utterly failed to show any relevance to his claims, let alone that it has any basis in fact.
Oh, good, more baseless nonsense.
There really isn’t much to be said about your many fallacies except that they are fallacies.
Yeah, right, someone whose only purpose here is to repeat BS without any regard for the lack of warrant for such trash.
It’s your lack of truth that makes your “witness” into a fine warning against believing baseless nonsense like yours. If you ever bothered with truth on the small scale, you might begin to deal with it on the larger scale.
What makes your unfounded claims any better than Plotinus’s claim about the “One”? It’s not like we don’t know claims such as yours, unfortunately yours isn’t as interesting, sophisticated, or intelligent as Plotinus’s philosophy, and his ideas are unconvincing to almost everyone who encounters them. One has to be in that tradition, or looking desperately for anything that seems slightly plausible, to accept that sort of rubbish.
You have never been polite or truthful, but always egoistic and selfish in your “discussions” that never leave your own precious fallacies.
Glen Davidson
Ummm…you keep saying that truth can’t be *of* your god. You keep insisting your god *is* truth. Which is it?
Then we cannot trust the word is true because it’s the very thing that establishes that this god is truth and faithful.
…and back we go round those circles of yours…
Hey Glen,
I sense your blood pressure is rising again. Perhaps you need to put me on ignore once more.
I would not be offended. I don’t want to be the source of stress in your life
Peace
If Intelligence requires intelligent intervention, an “intelligent Uncaused Cause” can’t exist
That one 😉
No, God is necessarily faithful and true the Bible is true derivatively
The Bible does not establish God’s truth and faithfulness the Bible witnesses God’s truth and faithfulness
peace
Then why don’t you deal properly with people, rather than trying to put them down for not agreeing with your rot?
You really owe people decency, not your filibusters, intrusions into actual discussions in order to assert your importance, false charges, and abysmally false modesty.
Oh, I’m fine, just tired of the endless lack of respect for anybody that you constantly reveal.
Glen Davidson
That can’t be right. If you understood what truth was you’d know it can’t be a him (or a her). It is, as Neil said, (something like) a property that some sentences have and others lack.
Nothing can be both truth and a revealer, if your conception requires that God be both, then I have some bad news for you.
Can you be specific. I’m sorry if I haven’t dealt with you “properly”.
Tell me what you want and I will try and comply if it does not mean compromising my beliefs or denying my God by acting as if he is not who he is.
I’m not filibustering I’m only responding to comments. If you ignore me and don’t denigrate my God I promise I won’t write a comment to you.
By the same token if you feel my comments are an intrusion the best course of action is ignoring me.
I have not made any false charges AFAIK. Could you give me an example?
As far as false modesty I admit to often thinking too highly of myself. I’m working on it 😉
peace
It it true that nothing can be both truth and a reveler?
How do you know?
Ever hear of the Trinity? Different roles one God and all that
peace
In that case, then you have nothing to offer. Your statements are all contingent. And if some god is necessary, then nothing you offer can change anything from god or me.
In other words, your reference to John (or anything in the bible) is meaningless if its truth is derivative and your god is necessary.
The bible is a written document (actually, a collection of documents). It can’t witness anything.
E Prime is simply English with any forms of the verb “to be.” Your requested example is “Atheists lack belief in a god or gods.”
So, how would you rephrase your statement “Truth is not an entailment of God. Truth is what God is.” in E Prime?
As I often say, these questions will always come down to the problem of other minds.
I happen to know that Truth can be a “him” I know this because he has revealed himself to me.
I can understand that if he has not revealed to you that he is a person that you would have a hard time understanding how this could be.
The question is whether there is a logical reason why truth could not be a person?
If you think there is it means you don’t understand either “person” or “truth”
peace
Not in the slightest. “Truth” is an abstract noun. Statements can be (more or less) true. As discussed the last time you brought this up, you are attempting to reify “truth”. It makes no sense.
Perhaps an operational definition of truth, as you are using it and without reference to any god, would help make things clear. What exactly do you mean by “truth” and how can it be distinguished from “not truth”?
you must have missed it
“God reveals himself to himself as truth and recognizes himself as truth.”
peace
I can infer a lot of things from that statement. The answerer is sentient, English-speaking, has some interest in religious matters, etc. If I wanted to be pedantic, I could add lots of disjunctive properties and necessary properties.
Petrushka, believe me, I know you like that definition. As indicated early in the thread (or in some earlier one–who can remember) I think it needs gussying up.
To get rid of haystacks, we could say
ANYONE who fails to believe in any god.
Then to get rid of newborns and comatose individuals, we could make it
Any normally-witted adult who fails to believe in any god.
That leaves in people who’ve never given the matter a thought, but maybe that’s OK with you. I wouldn’t think of a person whose never considered whether or not there’s a god an atheist myself, but, if you do, fine.
But now, what do we do with somebody who says ‘I think there’s a God, but it’s what you mean by “truth” (or “life” or “light”).’ And you ask ‘Well, did it create the universe? Is it conscious? Does it (or did it ever) care about anything? Is it good or smart or powerful?’ And the person says, “Oh no. Any of those would be ridiculous! God isn’t any of THOSE crazy things. But that doesn’t mean there’s no God!! God is simply truth.”
Atheist or not?
Yes there is a logical reason. They’re wildly different concepts in entirely different categories. If you can’t see this it means you don’t understand either “person” or “truth” or both. And this has nothing whatever to do with other minds either.
I agree it’s not about me
sure it can the same way your comments on this site “witness” your character.
quote:
witness a : something serving as evidence or proof : sign
b : public affirmation by word or example of usually religious faith or conviction
end quote”
from here
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/witness
peace
Awesome. Puns now.
Anyone having the language capacity to say, I am an atheist.
Let’s not move goalposts.
I’m all ears
why not explain what you mean.
Can a single entity belong to different categories?
For instance can king Midas be both a person and a cautionary tale?
Can an automobile be both a machine and a measure of independence for a teenage male?
peace
There is no way AFAIK to define anything with out referencing God.
Sometimes the reference is explicit sometimes it is implicit but there is always a reference to the only objective point of reference (God).
One helpful way to look at it is this
Truth is what God believes.
God believes himself
peace
Walto, with all due respect, it looks to me like you haven’t been paying attention to what we’ve been saying.
First off I think we’ve been rather clear in saying that it’s up to others (theists) to define god, and our atheism can both mean lack of belief or both lack of belief and belief in god’s non-existence depending on the definition. Or anything in between: as the definition goes to the most vague, abstract concept of god, to something more specific that involves claims about the physical world, I think it’s safe to say that belief in non-existence is justified to increase exponentially
Now if someone was to piggyback on some other concept to define god like FMM is doing with truth, it’s not about god anymore, it’s about truth. You may ask if I’m a realist, but in that context it would have zero to do with being a theist or an atheist
I agree.
Patrick is entitled to use these words as he wishes. I don’t use the words “atheism” and “agnosticism” as he does. That’s a disagreement in usage that can impede communication but it doesn’t mean that one of us is right and the other one is wrong. He has his reasons for why he uses those terms as he does, and I have my reasons for why I use them differently.
then
Apparently It’s up to others to define God but up to dazz to decide if he likes the definition they provide?
Isn’t that special
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
No, not without equivocation is Midas both a person and a cautionary tale.
And if you were just a tad bit more lunatic you could identify god with a cabbage. That would still not make me a theist, even though a few of them have “revealed” to me in plenty groceries
Well which is it then?
Is King Midas (if he was real) a person or a cautionary tale?
If you say person would it be incorrect to say King Midas was a cautionary tale?
If you say cautionary tale would it be incorrect to say King Midas was a person?
Peace
Who is this ‘we’ you refer to here, dazz? I was responding to patrick, petrushka (and sometime a yorkie) who have pretty clearly insisted that there is only one correct def of ‘atheism’. I have also responded to Allan who claimed that he didn’t need to define God at all to maintain there aren’t any such thingies. I believe Neil has indicated agreement with my take on these issues. Glen too, on at least some of them. If you do too, welcome! But I have not been arguing with you, then.
ETA: I see that KN has also agreed with me regarding what ‘atheism’ may mean. It ain’t been unanimous, though, sadly.
Yes you could and if you did your god would be a cabbage. stranger things have been believed.
The only question would be “Does your god have the qualifications for deity?” I think that would be an interesting discussion.
I’d venture to bet that the closer your god came to meeting the qualifications the more he would sound like the Christian God
peace
Why is it necessary or interesting to label people?
I try to answer questions about how I think honestly, but I share Patrick’s resentment when what I say is extended.There are psychological clusters and there are stereotypes.
People who would recoil from racism or sexism are happy to engage in political or occupational stereotyping. One step out of political correctness, and you are bagged and strung up.
Do I contradict myself?
Very well, then, I contradict myself.
Please, Walto, we are not saying there is only one correct definition of atheism.
We might be saying there is only one thing common to all atheists, and if you want more, you need to engage in dialog.
I have lots of quirky thoughts. I am not Dawkins or Harris or Coyne, but I seem to share nonbelief with them.
‘King Midas’ (those words) may refer either to the tale or the person. If you need to equivocate with them to make a point, that’s actually a bad thing. Best to try to clarify rather than obfuscate.
Yeah, those “we” would be Patrick & petrushka.
We’re just talking past each other here. I don’t think Patrick or petrushka ever said that this particular definition of atheism meaning lack of belief must be subscribed by everyone.
I personally said a while back that atheism doesn’t rely so much on it’s own definition, but on god’s definition itself and depending on it it can both entail lack of belief or belief in (even knowledge of) god’s non-existence. But those two are not incompatible.
No, you’re missing the point. A cabbage is no deity. I cook cabbages. I would cook and eat gods under that definition. That’s about it
Truth is no deity. Keep your delusion to yourself, stamping a useless label on some known concept doesn’t add anything to any discussion
Suppose you lived in ancient Rome and according to your culture Caesar was god.
Would you want to affirm that god (ie Caesar) did not exist?
Or would you instead want to affirm that god (ie Caesar) was not all your neighbors cracked him up to be?
peace