[NT] NT's and belief in a deity

[juggernaut]

^ I'm not being evasive, I simply have nothing in my head to weigh in on. Russell's Teapot only works if you buy into the commonly marketed conception of god. I already said that that doesn't work for me. If, however, you take into account all the different accounts of a god or gods that have been offered up by other cultures since the beginning of recorded history, you're dead in the water. Is it the perfection of the universe? the universe in it's entirety? "the source" of everything? The point is I have no idea what anyone is even talking about when they use the term "god". I cannot tell you I don't believe in something that I can't even get my head around. You can use all the goofy mythological references you like, it doesn't change the fact that "god" is semantically opaque...and I feel more comfortable admitting that I don't know what we're talking about when we use the term than saying it, whatever "it" is, doesn't exist. The naive, Phil 100, arguments against the existence of the Western, biblical god hold absolutely no sway with me.

 

[Costrin]

Ugh. I am annoyed at the terms atheist and agnostic. Specifically how it's been warped. Atheist should (in my biased opnion) mean "without belief in a deity". A - non, theist - belief in god. It's been warped to "belief in the nonexistence of god" or whatever, which is not my belief. Furthermore, agnostic is basically an addition to (a)theist. A - non, gnostic - knowledge. So agnostic basically says that you can never know 100% for sure. So you could have an agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist, or non agnostic versions of both. Of course, this problem is why the terms strong and weak atheist were invented. But really, I've never seen or heard of anybody who held the strong atheist position.

</rant about pet peeve of mine>

 

[juggernaut]

Do you agree that it technically does according to the 2nd. definition, 2nd. quote in my last post?

Only if we include the caveat that we're talking about "narrow" atheism. Otherwise, no. I don't believe in the Abrahamic god that doles out punishment in the form of plagues, floods, and pestilence. Other possibilities are still open, however.

 

[jenocyde]

Agnosticism is another skeptical thesis. Like almost all skeptical theses, it naively and incorrectly assumes that each of the claims we are allowed to pick from are equally likely.

...

So it's really facile and evasive to say that active disbelief in any god is unwarranted. There is more evidence for the claim that they have been invented than there is for the claim that we cannot decide whether they exist or not.

Please, with all due respect, get over yourself.

Calling someone naive, incorrect, facile or evasive does not prove or disprove agnosticism, or theism for that matter. The models you presented are not, in fact, what I have a hard time believing/disbelieving.

Your assumption is that all agnostics have one argument or one thesis.

The theories that man has presented - in the form of stories and/or mythology - is not what leads to a general unknowing. My unknowing stems from the fact that we do not know how this earth, galaxy or universe was formed. A+gnosis = without knowledge. This is what I am - agnostic.

 

[Owl]

So far, I'm the only INTP theist to respond. (Though the new gal with the flaming sword avatar might weigh in later). And there are four INTJ atheists, but no INTJ Theists.

When I was 19, I was an atheist, and that was when I discovered MBTI. I took a free test or two, and got INTJ each time.

I wonder if there's a connection between INTJ thought patterns/epistemic norms and atheist metaphysics. I'm thinking there is, but I've not the time to go into detail as to why.

 

[Costrin]

I'm agnostic because I don't care whether there's a god or not. Atheism doesn't work for me because it's just another unsubstantiated belief. Neither the belief in a god nor the belief that there is no god makes any sense to me. The word 'god' is wholly devoid of semantic content for me. The only thing that comes to mind at all when I hear the word 'god' is a picture of an old hippie wearing a toga in need of a trip to the barber... and he doesn't seem terribly god-like.

You may be an apatheist!

 

[Aleph-One]

^ I'm not being evasive, I simply have nothing in my head to weigh in on. Russell's Teapot only works if you buy into the commonly marketed conception of god. I already said that that doesn't work for me. If, however, you take into account all the different accounts of a god or gods that have been offered up by other cultures since the beginning of recorded history, you're dead in the water. Is it the perfection of the universe? the universe in it's entirety? "the source" of everything? The point is I have no idea what anyone is even talking about when they use the term "god". I cannot tell you I don't believe in something that I can't even get my head around. You can use all the goofy mythological references you like, it doesn't change the fact that "god" is semantically opaque...and I feel more comfortable admitting that I don't know what we're talking about when we use the term than saying it, whatever "it" is, doesn't exist. The naive, Phil 100, arguments against the existence of the Western, biblical god hold absolutely no sway with me.

Taking into account all of the different accounts of god gives us a list of specific deities to refute. I fail to see how this is killing my case: I said that we can argue against specific deities, and your pointing out that there is a list of specific gods does nothing but undermine your claim that god is semantically opaque. We take the interventionist deities of mythology in stride, and can refute them on a case-by-case basis because they are specific claims, and usually claims which are suspiciously self-serving declarations of racial entitlement by divine mandate.

If they are non-specific notions of god we are arguing against, then Russell's teapot works especially well. When a deity is introduced in a debate which is not a part of an interventionist mythology, then it is introduced as a concept designed to pathologically evade the kinds of tactics which were offered as a refutation of the specific deities. Russell's teapot is a demonstration that we are under no obligation to plead agnosticism about the truth of pathologically evasive concepts.

My unknowing stems from the fact that we do not know how this earth, galaxy or universe was formed.

If we were genuinely ignorant of the processes which formed these things, it would still not appropriate to entertain every conjecture about their formation equally. But, as it happens, we do actually know how they formed especially in the case of galaxies and the earth. And I tend to get slightly sensitive about it when someone who makes an argument from ignorance (which is the most supremely arrogant fallacy of all - "I don't know this personally, so it must be must be unknowable because I'm so smart and would have figured it out otherwise") tells me to get over myself. That's the pot calling the porcelain china black.

 

[juggernaut]

^ The point is there is no fixed list. Various cultures have postulated, and continue to postulate, vastly different notions of what "god" consists in. Some of them seem more attractive than others, but I'll never know if any of them are actually "true". There is no evasion involved, it's simply a matter of conceding ignorance, something we know western analytic philosophers have a great dealing of doing even when they have absolutely no clue what they're talking about.

I'm not talking about non-specific notions, the people that hold the beliefs I referenced have something very specific in mind. I just don't have epistemic access to it. Again, you can argue this point until you're blue in the face, but you will never know whether you're correct. I don't even need to bother taking the gods on a case-by-case basis, because the list much longer than anything I could get through even over many lifetimes, and it continues to grow. Even more importantly, some one thing on that list might actually be a correct account, but because it's supernatural (beyond the natural world) none of us will ever know.

If you feel more comfortable believing that you know there is no god, more power to you. I'll go on believing I'm as clueless about this matter as I really am. Remember our lord and savior, Socrates. The truly wise know they don't know.

 

[juggernaut]

You may be an apatheist!

You may be right!

 

[juggernaut]

If we were genuinely ignorant of the processes which formed these things, it would still not appropriate to entertain every conjecture about their formation equally. But, as it happens, we do actually know how they formed especially in the case of galaxies and the earth. And I tend to get slightly sensitive about it when someone who makes an argument from ignorance (which is the most supremely arrogant fallacy of all - "I don't know this personally, so it must be must be unknowable because I'm so smart and would have figured it out otherwise") tells me to get over myself. That's the pot calling the porcelain china black.

Now you're just abusing concepts. Arguments from ignorance are not positions of agnosticism. Saying one does not know something is not the same thing as saying a thing cannot ever be known by anyone. Agnosticism is about recognizing one's own limitations, something you appear to be having some difficulty doing. We are absent of knowledge, and therefore cannot decide one way or the other. Clearly, people like you think you have knowledge.

 

[maliafee]

Atheism can mean both "lack of belief in God" and "belief in the non-existence of God."

OP should've used the terms "Weak Atheist" (Agnostic Atheist) and "Strong Atheist" (Gnostic Atheist) instead of "Agnostic" and "Atheist".

I chose atheist becase I lack belief, not because I believe in the non-existence.

Thanks for clarifying this. Sorry for the failure of the poll.

 

[jenocyde]

If we were genuinely ignorant of the processes which formed these things, it would still not appropriate to entertain every conjecture about their formation equally. But, as it happens, we do actually know how they formed especially in the case of galaxies and the earth. And I tend to get slightly sensitive about it when someone who makes an argument from ignorance (which is the most supremely arrogant fallacy of all - "I don't know this personally, so it must be must be unknowable because I'm so smart and would have figured it out otherwise") tells me to get over myself. That's the pot calling the porcelain china black.

Ok, then please do explain how and why the earth, galaxy and universe were created... Please enlighten me, since you actually know.

If your definition of arrogance is me admitting what I do not know, then I will gladly accept the title of arrogant. No need to argue about that.

 

[Aleph-One]

Now you're just abusing concepts. Arguments from ignorance are not positions of agnosticism. Saying one does not know something is not the same thing as saying a thing cannot be known be known by anyone. Agnosticism is about recognizing one's own limitations, something you appear to be having some difficulty doing.

No, but an argument for agnosticism or against strong atheism which has, as its premise, the statement that we don't know how the earth, galaxies or universe formed is an argument from ignorance.

If your definition of arrogance is me admitting what I do not know, then I will gladly accept the title of arrogant.

You did not merely state that you did not know something. You stated that your not knowing something about astrophysical processes was grounds for agnosticism about deities. That is an argument from ignorance.

Ok, then please do explain how and why the earth, galaxy and universe were created... Please enlighten me, since you actually know.

There is no more sense in asking "why" they formed than asking why rainclouds form. It's ridiculous to think that everything serves an ordained purpose. "How" is a matter of astrophysics, and for galaxies and planets can be found in the relevant textbooks.

 

[heart]

No, but an argument for agnosticism or against strong atheism which has, as its premise, the statement that we don't know how the earth, galaxies or universe formed is an argument from ignorance.

I was under the impression that we have theories about the formation of the earth, galaxies and universe but only theories. No solid facts.

 

[juggernaut]

Thanks for clarifying this. Sorry for the failure of the poll.

Don't apologize! It's a great poll. It gives us all a chance to see how different our understanding of things are. I'm very glad you created it.

 

[juggernaut]

No, but an argument for agnosticism or against strong atheism which has, as its premise, the statement that we don't know how the earth, galaxies or universe formed is an argument from ignorance.


You did not merely state that you did not know something. You stated that your not knowing something about astrophysical processes was grounds for agnosticism about deities. That is an argument from ignorance.

Could it be, perhaps, that she was referring to what got the whole thing moving in the first place, rather than the physical events that took place? The "why?" rather than the "how?". People can ask "why?" without assuming an ordained purpose...as in "I wonder why this universe came into existence?" The answer to that question is 'we don't know'. That is the point. We don't KNOW (there is no justified true belief). What's really ridiculous is to assume the western analytic school has got things all figured out. If we were having this discussion 250 years ago you'd be telling us how ridiculous it is to not believe in a god.

 

[maliafee]

Don't apologize! It's a great poll. It gives us all a chance to see how different our understanding of things are. I'm very glad you created it.

Thank you. I thought it would be fun, and interesting.

I was thinking of my brother Dan (INTJ) and his fiancee Ada (INTP). When they met in the UCLA philosophy club, she was very interested in metaphysical philosophy (am I wording that correctly?) and he was a staunch atheist who held the view some other NT's in this thread do about there being more evidence that God is made up than that we don't know either way. Now they both pretty much take that stance (they've been together for over 2 years and their main source of contention is their differing views on Israeli politics).

What happened to INTP Ada's sense of a metaphysical world? Then I thought about belief in God. I wanted to see if other INTP's were more likely to believe in the supernatural.

Anyway, I'm really enjoying the argument from afar. I wouldn't dare argue with an NT about a serious topic (every time I try I end up crying alone ).

 

[matmos]

Sitting on the fence. Just in case.

 

[jenocyde]

You stated that your not knowing something about astrophysical processes was grounds for agnosticism about deities.

I stated nothing of the sort. I clearly and simply said that I am agnostic (a+gnosis=without knowledge). You chose to add your personal meanings to my basic definition, as well as insults.

But now that you bring it up... Because I know nothing about the astrophysical process, it also means I know nothing about the creation of that same astrophysical process. Who created the laws of astrophysics? I don't know how the earth was created and I don't know why. I don't know if a deity created it or not - seems unlikely, but there are also seems to have been a plan, since everything is so symbiotic. The questions of "how" and "why" are not irrelevant and it makes perfect sense to ask them.

I'm not going to bicker any further with you. I took issue with your post about agnosticism and the language in which you chose to express yourself. I've made my point clear already. Take it or leave it.

 

[Aleph-One]

Could it be, perhaps, that she was referring to what got the whole thing moving in the first place, rather than the physical events that took place? The "why?" rather than the "how?". People can ask "why?" without assuming an ordained purpose...as in "I wonder why this universe came into existence?" The answer to that question is 'we don't know'. That is the point. We don't KNOW (there is no justified true belief). What's really ridiculous is to assume the western analytic school has got things all figured out. If we were having this discussion 250 years ago you'd be telling us how ridiculous it is to not believe in a god.

If she meant the same thing, why did she ask "how" and "why" as two different questions? If I use the word "why" as a synonym for "how" I don't go through the trouble of distinguishing between the two. And how do you know what I would have argued 250 years ago? Have I given you any indication that I'm making an argument here from a consensus position rather than taking things on their own merits? I can't possibly have, because active disbelief in the supernatural is not the consensus position.

And whether or not we know how a thing happened or how a thing does happen is not grounds for agnosticism about deities. Here's a dialogue:
Man 1: I don't believe in storm giants. In fact, I have good reason for thinking they do not exist.
Man 2: How can you say that? I don't know how the red spot on Jupiter works, so we can't claim that storm giants don't exist. We just don't know.
Man 1:

Who created the laws of astrophysics?

We did.

This argument has been conducted illogically and in poor faith, with more presumption of my motives and defects than cases being made. I've no reason to persist in it any longer.