Q&A re Agnosticism

I have identified myself as a strong agnostic. My use of this label is probably not entirely correct (for a good discussion, see here), but I haven't found an acceptable alternative. By "strong agnostic," I mean I hold as true the proposition that, while some people may know that a god or gods exist, it is impossible for anyone to know the nature of such a god or gods.

This self-identification led to the following Q&A on the Philosophy & Religion discussion board at IMDb:

Theist: "Just a quick question about your 'strong agnostic' stance. What is it that makes you believe that 'the nature of a god or gods is unknowable to' YOU. Since you are willing to accept as 'evidence' personal experience what kind of personal experience or knowledge would it take you to move from 'strong' agnostic to let's say a 'willing' agnostic?"

Skeptic: "I've reached this conclusion for several reasons: First, when I was a theist (I was raised Roman Catholic and I've also tried Unitarianism, Quakerism, and Episcopalianism), I didn't have the kind of personal experience or revelation that I am able to take as evidence of a deity. There was no private experience I had then (AFAICR) that I have not also had as a non-theist. Therefore (since I'm nearly 50 years old), I don't anticipate having such an experience in the future. (It's possible, but my past tells me it's unlikely.) Second, even if I do have a private experience sufficient to cause me to believe that a deity exists, I find it almost impossible that the experience would tell me anything reliable about the deity other than that he exists. (I use 'he' for convenience here.) This is because (like any sane person) I would need to check my private experience against other data, including the spiritual experiences reported by others. Since those reports point in varying directions that are mutually exclusive in their details, I would have to discount the details of my own experience. I would thus be left with the one general inference that a deity exists."

Other Writings of Alvin Plantinga

Theist: "Here's the link to another of his articles, 'Theism, Atheism, and Rationality.' Plantinga believes that 'blind faith' is irrational and that all faith should be based on some evidence. The article above should probably be required reading for posters on the IMDb Philosophy & Religion discussion board. In fact the final argument suggests that the idea that both theists and atheists feel that the other's arguments are dysfunctional is in itself a proof: 'As I have been representing that matter, theist and atheist alike speak of a sort of dysfunction, of cognitive faculties or cognitive equipment not working properly, of their not working as they ought to. But how are we to understand that? What is it for something to work properly? Isn't there something deeply problematic about the idea of proper functioning?' Interesting stuff."

Skeptic: "Thanks for posting this. Most of the stuff by Plantinga that I had found on the web was written at too technical a level for me. I look forward to reading the article you linked. I find this thought especially challenging: 'Plantinga believes that 'blind faith' is irrational and that all faith should be based on some evidence.' I started a thread a few days ago pushing the proposition that the only good evidence for a god is private evidence (private revelation), which by its nature is not subject to debate. It leaves believers and atheists nothing to talk about. One group feels it, and the other doesn't."

Later . . .

Skeptic: "I just read that article. It's a tough one to get a handle on. As I understand it, his argument is the following: 1. That some people have theistic beliefs is a given. A theist can't simply un-believe in a god or gods, just as someone can't suddenly un-believe that Mars is smaller than Venus. 2. Atheists tend to think that theists believe what they believe because they are somehow intellectually flawed. 3. Atheists who think the foregoing (item 2) should be able to present an explanation of how theists are intellectually flawed, i.e., what constitutes a healthy intellect and in what ways are theists' intellects not healthy. 4. Atheists are unable to provide such an explanation beyond mere assertions. What strikes me as odd about the article is that Plantinga doesn't really confront the prevailing answer to the questions raised in item 3. Most atheists (I think) would say that a healthy intellect is one that evaluates data, and draws inferences from data, by a rational process (let's call it the detective explanation). Plantinga acknowledges such an explanation early in the article but then drops it. By the time he gets to item 4 in his argument, he seems to have forgotten it. If he had faced the detective explanation head on, I suppose he could have argued (a) that it's still just an assertion, since we have no way of proving that the detective explanation is right; or (b) even if we assume that the detective explanation is right, theists are not without supporting data (including the data of their private promptings)."

Theist: "Plantinga believes as well that 'a healthy intellect is one that evaluates data, and draws inferences from data, by a rational process (let's call it the detective explanation)'. As your post summarizing his 'Theistic Arguments' proves, Plantinga is willing to provide numerous rational arguments for his faith. It appears that he has a pretty healthy intellect and is willing to argue his position rationally. He has equal opinions of those who have blind faith and those who argue that all those who have faith are blind, both sides need to think a bit more. It is equally wrong to blindly dismiss the arguments of atheists as it is to blindly dismiss the arguments of people of faith."

Skeptic: "That makes sense. (It's what I was trying to get at with the (b) part of my last sentence.) I have another article by Plantinga that I've started but haven't yet had time to finish. It's entitled 'Advice to Christian Philosophers' and is available in PDF here. Interestingly, in section III of the article ('Theism and Theory of Knowledge'), he asks, Why can't a theist's belief in God be itself part of the evidence on which the theist can base a rational conclusion that there is a god? My answer to that question is, Yes, it can be part of the evidence. In fact, I think it's probably the strongest evidence. The theist has an inner light or immediate conviction that I don't have. He has an experience that I do not, and that experience is evidence of something."

Theist: "Yes, I have that article, 'Advice to Christian Philosophers' saved on my other computer. Pretty good stuff. I appreciate the preceding comment of yours and its honesty. If in fact the experience of 'evil' can be considered an argument against God, and I think it actually can be an argument for His existence as well, then the experience of God's presence in one's life should be considered as evidence. Sadly it seems that many atheists don't have that viewpoint and insist that there lack of experience is somehow more real."

(from the Philosophy & Religion discussion board at IMDb.)

Plantinga's "Two Dozen (or So) Theistic Arguments"

Through the links on the Wikipedia page about philosopher Alvin Plantinga, I found a piece by him entitled "Two Dozen (or So) Theistics Arguments." Available here in PDF. The article is labeled "Lecture Notes by Alvin Plantinga" and is accordingly in a rough form, with a lot of points merely suggested rather than explained. Much of it (especially the first half) is also pretty dense.

I thought it would be interesting to summarize (and inevitably oversimplify) Plantinga's list here:

1. Ontological (or Metaphysical) Arguments

A. Argument from Intentionality (or Aboutness) -- if propositions have intentionality, then some being before us must have thought them.

B. Argument from Collections -- sets exist independently of human minds and are so numerous that they require an infinite mind.

C. Argument from Natural Numbers -- similar to B but using numbers.

D. Argument from Counterfactuals -- counterfactual reasoning is based on an ability to sort meaningful from irrelevant similarities and differences; that ability is ineffable.

E. Argument from Physical Constants -- why is the universe isotropic, in the precise way that makes life possible?

F. The Naive Teleological Argument -- why does the natural world appear to be orderly?

G. Tony Kenny's Style of Teleological Argument (Plantinga simply lists this one without any comment)

H. The Ontological Argument (ditto)

I. Another Argument Thrown in for Good Measure -- contingent beings (such as humans) could not exist without some necessary being.

2. Epistemological Arguments

J. Argument from Positive Epistemic Status -- why do so many natural things work properly?

K. Argument from the Confluence of Proper Function and Reliability -- why do our beliefs correspond reliably with reality?

L. Argument from Simplicity -- theism is the simplest explanation.

M. Argument from Induction -- what's the origin of our belief that things in the future will happen as they typically have in the past?

N. The Putnamian Argument (Argument from the Rejection of Global Skepticism) -- A Christian-type god would not deceive us "in a disgustingly wholesale manner"; therefore, the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis can't be true; therefore, since we "know" that the brain-in-a-vat hypothesis is not true, there is a god.

O. Argument from Reference -- Similar to N, but turning on the proposition that we would not be able to think the thoughts we have if there were not an outer reality that they correspond to.

P. The Kripke-Wittgenstein Argument from Plus and Quus (Plantinga simply lists this one without any comment)

Q. General Argument from Intuition -- where do our true intuitions come from?

3. Moral Arguments

R. Moral Arguments -- where do objective moral facts come from?

R*. Argument from Evil -- certain kinds of human evil is so utterly appalling that it requires divine judgment.

4. Other Arguments

S. Argument from Colors and Flavors -- why is there a correlation between physical and psychical properties?

T. Argument from Love -- where does love come from?

U. Mozart Argument -- where does appreciation of beauty come from?

V. Argument from Play and Enjoyment -- why is our pleasure connected with certain things?

W. Arguments from Providence and from Miracles (Plantinga simply lists this one without any comment)

X. C.S. Lewis's Argument from Nostalgia -- why do certain things make us think of a creator?

Y. Argument from the Meaning of Life (Plantinga doesn't really explain this one)

Z. Argument from A to Y -- why are there so many questions that are readily answered by positing a god?

(from the Philisophy & Religion discussion board at IMDb.)

Are Rational Arguments for the Existence of a God or Gods Doomed to Fail?

I'm inclined to think so. Lots of rational arguments for the existence of a god have been put forward over the millennia. But I have yet to hear a good one. They are all easily brushed aside. Moreover, such arguments seem to become increasingly weak as we devise better and better non-god theories to account for ourselves and the things around us.

Consequently, in response to the question, "Why should I believe what you're telling me, Mr./Ms. Theist?" I don't think any answer is worth making. There is no answer that will convince any educated person who is not already disposed to agree.

The only things a theist can say (IMO) that are not pointless would be: "This is what I believe. I have a strong, private conviction that it is right."

Statements of religious belief would thus be similar to "I like broccoli" or "I find Tyra Banks more attractive than Heidi Klum." They would be statements of private opinion, beyond rational support (or contravention).

(from the Philosophy & Religion discussion board at IMDb.)

Some Responses:

calystia: "I agree, I have never seen a rational argument for god, and I doubt any theist would be able to come up with one that would sway my opinion in the slightest."

Leon-Scott-Kennedy: "I don't know that they are 'easily brushed aside' (I doubt philosophers would still be seriously debating many forms of various arguments if they were that easy to be rid of), but yes, ultimately, I think they are 'doomed to fail.' You can't rationalize the irrational, and even if you succeed in doing so, you've probably only touched at the surface of what is true."

Leon-Scott-Kennedy (responding to my question whether any philosophers are currently debating arguments for a god): "Well, I know relatively recently, the cosmological argument has resurfaced thanks to William Lane Craig, and the ontological argument thanks to Alvin Plantinga. Hans Kung published a hefty tome in the 80s compiling all the 'proofs' for the existence of God. For a class, I recently picked up a much smaller text by Richard Swinburne discussing some 'proofs.' It seems unlikely to me that these men would go unanswered; one could probably find a 'companion' volume to each of these works arguing the very opposite point."

Helios 1: "I'm somewhat undecided at the moment, but I know the answer isn't so obviously in the positive as the denizens of this board seem to believe it is (and they are not good at brushing them to the side...very few of them are willing or able to criticize anything other than radically conservative fundamentalist sects of major theistic religions). It's something that intelligent people and philosophers have grappled with since rising from the primordial soup. In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in theism (mainly due to the implosion of logical positivism), and a surge of interesting literature has been produced by contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. Those who are really interested would probably do well to start looking there. See, for example, the work of Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, John Hick, John Mackie, William Rowe, Mark McCleod, Joshua Hoffman, Gary Rosenkrantz, Brian Leftow, Paul Helm, Peter van Inwagen, Keith Yandell, Robin Collins, John Leslie, Linda Zagzebski, Eleanore Stump, Robert Adams, Keith Ward, Hans Küng, Norman Malcolm, Charles Hartshorne, and many others. Good luck."

lovehopefaith: "To answer simply, YES they are doomed to fail. How do you explain an infinite being with your finite mind and capabilities? How do you explain a spiritual being with merely physical data/proof? You can't."

sverrir90: "I have yet to see a somewhat decent and thorough argument for the existence of a higher [supernatural] being. I never seen an argument for the exisence of a *particular* higher [supernatural] being that has not been insanely retarded."

LionHearted99: "Let's put it this way: If there were any convincing arguments for the existence of God, they would have long ago been manifest. Since no convincing arguments have come forward, we must conclude that there are no rational arguments that prove the existence of God."

What Characteristics Tend to Make a Religion Lame?

Certain atheists seem to hold that all religions are equally lame. I tend to think, however, that some religions (e.g., Scientology) are lamer than others (e.g., Quakerism).

Here are characteristics that I think will tend to make a religion that possesses them lame (and the more it possesses, the lamer it is):

- requiring its adherents to pay money in order to learn whatever "truths" the religion has to offer (Scientology)

- there's good historical evidence that it was founded by a con-artist (L. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith).

- encouraging its adherents to commit suicide (Heaven's Gate, the Peoples Temple of Jim Jones)

- rigid adherence to readily falsifiable claims about reality (YEC, Scientology)

- harassing non-believers, critics, and apostates (Scientology, Roman Catholicism in the past, LDS in the past, Islam, some Protestant sects, many others)

- positing a detailed scheme of supernatural beings (LDS, Roman Catholicism, Hinduism)

- promoting or winking at vulgar superstition (Roman Catholicism, Islam, Santeria, Hinduism, LDS)

- discouraging members from associating with non-members (Jehovah's Witnesses, evangelical Christians, Islam)

That's my shot at an initial list. (NOTE: My initial list has been edited to reflect comments from others.) I'm sure this could be enlarged and refined. Also, needless to say, the examples in parentheses are not meant to be exhaustive.

(from the Philosophy & Religion discussion board at IMDb.)

A Dialogue on the Problem of Evil

Theist: "God allows evil, that doesn't mean God created evil. Evil is disobeying God, evil is sin. If God did not allow evil, he would destroy everything that was evil, that includes us. If evil did not exist, we would be creatures with no choice but to do good. The existence of evil means that humans have free will and can choose between right and wrong. A loving God allows His human creations the choice between good and evil. A tyrannical god would not give humanity a choice, he would create a humanity with the inability to choose. 'Robots' if you will."

Skeptic: "I don't think free will works as an explanation for evil if we wish to stay within the confines of Christian theology. It seems to me that the argument must be based on the premise that the Christian god was incapable of creating a universe in which people would have free will but there would be no evil. If this god were incapable of doing that, then he wouldn't be omnipotent. He would be subject to outside constraints, such as the constraint that you can't have free will without evil. But the Christian god is omnipotent. Therefore, he could have created the universe in such a way that we would have free will but there would be no evil. For some reason he chose not to do it that way. He chose to make the universe the way we find it. IMO, the only coherent explanation for the existence of evil, assuming a loving and omnipotent creator god, is that he had reasons for doing things the way he did, those reasons are beyond our comprehension, and we just have to trust that they are loving reasons. "

Theist: "If evil is doing other than what God wants, then the notion of not being able to go against what God wants contradicts the idea of having free will. You are asking for a square circle, an inherent contradiction."

Skeptic: "Fair enough. I can think of two responses (which are unrelated to each other). 1. When we talk about the problem of evil, 'evil' is often defined as more than just 'doing other than what God wants.' Evil would also include earthquakes, floods, cancer and other diseases, animal attacks, accidents. Even if everyone did what their god wants, those things would still bring harm to people. An explanation of the problem of evil should explain why we have those things. 2. Since the Christian god is an omnipotent creator, he should be able to make a square circle and other inherent contradictions. He not only created the things in the universe; he also created all the properties of and rules governing those things. He could have created a universe with completely different properties and completely different rules from what we are subject to."

Theist: "1. Defining evil in terms of human desires also makes it relative, not absolute. What I consider good because it benefits me, you may consider evil because it hurts you. If you do that, then either one of us is favored by God, or God is not involved in what is good or evil. If you want to talk about good and evil and use 'God' in the same sentence, it has to involve what God wants. 2. The basic rule of reality is that contradictions do not exist. If you say they do, you remove logic from the picture and you can no longer come to any legitimate conclusions. The universe could have been very different but it could not be self contradictory."

Skeptic: "1. If you want to stick with that definition of 'evil' (which you're certainly entitled to do), then I would pose a different question to believers in an omnipotent and loving creator god: Why did he create a universe in which substantial harm befalls his creatures regardless of whether they do what he wants or not? 2. This argument would make our reality & logic greater than the omnipotent creator. This creator created our reality. Given omnipotence, he should have been able to create any kind of reality he wanted, including one with different logic or no logic."

Theist: "1. Loving, hating etc. gods are the old style anthropomorphic immanent gods that had control of parts of the universe. God is the transcendent creator. What he wants us to do is to fulfill our part in the universe, to be what we can be. The obvious first step is to survive, the second to advance - whatever that may mean. Thus religions that help survival and facilitate advancement - again whatever that may turn out to mean - are good religions. Others are not good religions. Look at how the world works - that is the mind of God. 2. Any logic that allows specific conclusions must not allow contradiction, else anything can be 'proven', which means that nothing can be proven. If you allow contradictions, you cannot then come to conclusions or ask contradictions to be explained. So there are no longer any problems to resolve."

Skeptic: "1. It seems that you're talking about a non-Christian god (or an unorthodox Christian god). In that event, I really have no issue. My issue is with the effort to use free will to reconcile the Christian idea of a god, who is (a) omnipotent and (b) loving, with (c) the presence of evil (where 'evil' includes naturally occurring harm) in the universe he created. 2. I think your point 2 is consistent with my view that, assuming there is a god along the lines of Christian belief, his motives are beyond our comprehension."

Theist: "1. I am talking about God, who is not owned by any one religion. That would be a throwback to the old concept of tribal/national gods. 2. God's overall motives are not entirely clear, e.g., why are there black holes? But we seem to have a built-in approximate direction. To me, religion as a preserver of community (in its broadest sense) assists in going the right way. A religion that does not do that is wrong."

(Skeptic elected not to comment further.)

(from the Philosophy & Religion discussion board at IMDb.)

Occupations of Posters on IMDb's Philosophy & Religion Board

Some of the posters on the Philosophy & Religion discussion board at IMDb have been disclosing what they do for a living. That information is presented here in alphabetical order by screen name.

Azaezel -- amateur screenwriter/director

the death of achilles -- philosophy major in college

Dragon-Fury -- mechanical engineer working with continuous wave microwave for industrial use


GendoIkari 82 -- programmer

guyzzerino -- accountant, currently corporate controller

happycurl -- parent

Harvardlawguy -- lawyer (that's me)

JesusIsNotYourHomeboy -- community service

morkatt -- assistant to the veterinarians and nutritionist at a large poultry company

muppetlass87 -- student

NunchakuMichelangelo -- slacker, planning to be a student

RedRuth1966 -- research scientist, molecular cell biology

Sitcom Sally -- stay-at-home mom, formerly social worker and then accountant

X-Ice -- retired/disabled/welfare cheater

Serious Question for Creationists

I'm currently listening to a series of taped lectures on the history of science by a professor at Johns Hopkins. Today he was talking about the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601).

Even though Brahe was familiar with the work of Copernicus (positing that the sun, not the earth, is at the center of the universe), Brahe rejected Copernicus's sun-centered theory for both physical and theological reasons. His theological reasons included his belief that a moving earth and non-moving sun were contrary to the Bible. Specifically, in Joshua 10:12-13, it says that Joshua commanded the sun, " 'Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, . . . .' And the sun stood still . . . ." If the sun was always still, and the earth moved around the sun rather than vice versa, this passage wouldn't make sense.

That caused me to wonder how creationists feel about this passage and whether it means that the sun revolves around the earth. In other words, if we interpret the Bible literally (six days means six days, etc.), then does that require us to reject the idea that the earth revolves around the sun?

(Just to be clear, I'm not trying to bait people. I just want to understand creationism better.)

(Cross-posted from the IMDb Philosophy & Religion board.)

Age/Sex Data Provided by Posters on the IMDb Philosophy & Religion Discussion Board

In February 2008, assorted posters on IMDb's Philosophy & Religion discussion board posted their ages and whether they're male or female. For reference purposes, that information is gathered here, in alphabetical order. (NOTE 1: This is what people posted; I have no idea whether anything not posted by me was accurate.) (NOTE 2: Names in brackets are late additions and are not reflected in the "number crunching" below.) (NOTE 3: Some of the late additions are based on inferences from what the poster has disclosed rather than explicit disclosure of his/her age and sex.)

Anakin McFly, 18 (no sex stated)

Applied to Cucumbers, 31, male

the artichoke, 19, female

Azaezel, 20, male

blemish08, 18, male

bluesguitarguy02, 25, male

chris harkus, 16, male

cingulated, 35, male

the death of achilles, 19, male

Dragon-Fury, 29, female

emsby the prawnaquat, 29, female

F Gump, 48, male

fictionalsleep, 27, male

Fire in Babylon, 26, male

graham-167, 38, male

guyzzerino, 50, male

[HairynosedWombat, 59, male]

happycurl, 35, female

Harvardlawguy, pushing 50, male (that's me)

Jalopasiers, 32, male

Janitor Of Lunacy 456, 19 (no sex stated)

Jeff-The-God-Of-Biscuits, 24, male

jluis1984, 23, male

July Iris, 24, female

Mary-Jane Watson, 24, female

[Melkor Bauglir, 18, male]

MrsO again, 33, female

muppetlass87, 20, female

NunchakuMichelangelo, 20, male

odds lane, 14, female [it appears that this poster is in fact male and in his mid-20s, though that has not been confirmed]

ootsonati, 30, male

prawnchopsuey, 47, female

[SarahLTS, 29 (no sex stated)]

seisiader, 43, male

Some Dude, 22, male

Sorte Orm, 24, male

trainrider, male, 61

vampyreaayin, 21, female

[WhataRecch, 20, male]

whatismyname, 48 (no sex stated)

words on your screen, 30, male

[X-Ice, 53, female]

Yuck Fou, 18, male

zomnificent, 22, male

Number crunching: As of 12:24 pm on Feb. 11, 2008, I have 39 responses. Based on those responses, 25 (64%) are male, 11 (28%) are female, and 3 (8%) did not disclose a sex. The mean age is 29 (1,132 over 39). The median age is just under 26.

Who Are the "Moderate" Posters on the IMDb Philosophy & Religion Board?

I've been putting together a list of the "moderate" posters (IMO) on the Philosophy & Religion discussion board at IMDb. By "moderate" posters, I mean people who tend to take a live-and-let-live approach to P&R issues, are willing to question their assumptions, and are interested in hearing what others have to say.

At present, my list includes:

- The Death of Achilles
- DAdvocate
- Leon Scott Kennedy
- the dork lord
- Harvardlawguy (that's me)
- phe de

This list is not exclusive. Also, I don't mean to suggest that the "immoderate" posters are necessarily lacking in intelligence or humor.

UPDATE: The following are posters who identified themselves as being "moderate" in their approach:

- captainfantazmo
- cpfh
- hitters123
- i see spots
- Jeff-The-God-Of-Biscuits
- July Iris
- petersoni
- Pop Will Eat Ramjet
- TonyHarrison
- X-Ice

The following posters were identified by others as being "moderate":

- MrsO Again, ohmandy, leonardo, Lion Hearted, Mary-Jane Watson, lightandsalt, aspie-1, and RedRuth1966 (by petersoni)
- emsby the prawnaquat (by the dork lord)