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.
In the absence of objectively valid assertions supporting the existence of any entity, the rational position is to withhold belief. Do you agree?
Further disconfirming evidence may support taking the position that such an entity definitely does not exist, but without some support there is literally no reason to maintain a belief. There are an infinite number of possible entities for which there is no support. Why treat god claims differently?
Whether or not that is the case, gnosticism remains orthogonal to theism. You can be a radical agnostic atheist or a radical agnostic theist. When asked “Are you an atheist?”, “I’m a radical agnostic.” is non-responsive.
From God’s point of view, there is just one decree.
Miracles are a subset of strange and wondrous events. Magicians and ilusionists can perform some. In order for it to be a miracle, it must not be a deception. Catholic Church has a well-regulated procedure on how to identify miracles. You will see that it’s a rather limited event.
But you already know that “we” don’t accept it. You get irrelevant at point 2, because “actual world” is creation, whereas God is creator, so your “all objectively valid assertions about the actual world” are by definition not about point 1.
And the same applies to possible worlds. William Lane Craig may speculate about a possible world without God for your amusement, but this would go against the classical definition of God. According to the classical definition, no world is possible without God.
Looks like you are not even trying. I will stop trying too.
That sounds like something I would say.
😉
I might add that in my worldview there is no definition at all that does not implicitly assume God’s existence
peace
I might add that in my worldview all definitions implicitly deny the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s existence. The state should not compel me to fund the indoctrination of schoolchildren in the Orthodoxy of mathematics, a religious worldview contradicting the Pastafarian worldview, in which the Flying Spaghetti Monster re-creates, in each and every moment, all geometrical forms to suit His noodly purposes. If the federal court system does not eliminate taxpayer-funded instruction in the Orthodoxy, as I would prefer, then it should mandate instruction in Pastafarian mathematics to balance the Orthodoxy.
Ramen.
Care to share a link… for my amusement?
So assertions about god are assertions about the actual world, right?
So you’re saying that God is by definition creator of the actual world?
If you want to argue about the definition, then you had better refer explicitly to the definition. I read “perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things” as an assertion that perfect transcendence of all things (whatever that means) implies absolute immanence to all things (whatever that means). I haven’t a clue as to how to write “perfect transcendence implies absolute immanence” in the language of a bivalent logic. And if I were to formalize the definition, I’d have to persuade others informally that my definition captures what Hart meant with the informal definition. Talk about headaches!
I have a lot of respect for Kantian Naturalist, and merely suggest, rather than declare, that Hart’s definition of God doesn’t work for him. KN talks about proofs, so he needs a definition that someone can formalize. I doubt that anyone can formalize Hart’s definition.
Not yet posted when I went to work on the comment above.
If you want to take things off topic, do your own work to achieve it.
Not sure what “assertion” means when we are talking about definitions. Is defining something the same as asserting something? Sure, definitions have their implications, which is why KN’s absolute failure to engage with the definition he brought up is most unfortunate.
The way I read the definition, there’s a list ending in transcendence and the whole list implies immanence. On the list, there’s omnipresence. Maybe you can see how at least omnipresence implies immanence. Maybe not.
Even I know what it means. You’re not even trying: you sound like “Hey, let’s ignore KN’s argument altogether and talk about god” even though KN tried reformulating the Fork for you.
It sounds like your worldview is radically self refuting.
If for you all definitions implicitly deny the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster why would you want the state to act as if the Flying Spaghetti Monster existed. Are you trying to promote irrationality?
Perhaps you haven’t thought this one through.
peace
Always been hesitant to assume the viewpoint of an eternal being myself, humans are difficult enough.
Thank you for taking the time to develop this objection. I think it is very helpful, because it further underscores the deep incompatibility of classical theism and Humean agnosticism. However, doing so still doesn’t tell us which position we ought to prefer (if either).
It seems to me that in both ‘truths of fact’ (‘matters of fact’) and ‘truths of reason’ (‘relations of ideas’), you want to talk about metaphysics. And of course classical theism gives us a specific metaphysics of the actual world (as created by God) and of possible worlds (as conceived by God? That was Leibniz’s view, anyway).
But whereas you’re interested in the metaphysics, I’m interested in the epistemology — what justifies our claims about the actual world, and what justifies our claims about possible worlds? In the vast majority of cases, our claims about the actual world are justified in terms of intersubjective verification and our claims about possible worlds are justified in terms of formal provability. Theism requires an epistemology that amounts to neither of those — but is there one?
(For the record, I know nothing of William Lane Craig’s work. I know who he is but I don’t know anything about his positions.)
And according to you, an answer of “No, I am not an atheist” would be responsive but it would also be a lie.
Of course, if I asked you if you were an atheist and you answered yes, that would also be non-responsive. That’s where your attempt to redefine atheism gets us.
Are there any theists (classical or not) whose apology (defense of their relevant positions) is familiar to you? I mentioned Craig because he makes some use of “possible worlds”. So does Plantinga.
Not at all. By responding “Yes” I would be giving you the information that, at a minimum, I lack belief in any god or gods. That’s all you can discern from such a response, but it is indeed responsive to the question being asked.
I’m familiar with Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Buber, Emmanuel Levinas, Hent de Vries, Terry Eagleton. Do any of them count?
My worldview is radically self-asserting, and to no greater degree than yours is.
Leaving aside the self defeating nature of your position
If I understand your OP correctly according to your epistemology there are no justified claims at all beyond trivial statements about what can be measured . For everything else the only justified position is radical Agnosticism.
Of course you know there is
revelation
Instead of assuming the general reliability of our own cognitive and sensory faculties we assume the existence of God and we are justified in believing something if and only if he has revealed it.
The difference in the two approaches is that (as you say) your epistemology is unable to help you determine if God exists yet is does inevitably lead to the conclusion that our cognitive and sensory faculties aren’t reliable
peace
To assume the existence of a particular God, one must first assume the general reliability of our cognitive faculty to formulate and make that assumption.
No it isn’t. As the one asking the question I get to decide what is responsive and what is non-responsive. You’ve already set the precedence for this so now why do you all of a sudden have a problem with it?
You aren’t missing anything.
Genocide-loving Craig is an irredeemable asshole who thinks the only thing wrong with the Old Testament is that Israelite warriors might have been emotionally traumatized by being ordered (by god) to massacre the babies and children of (the sinful) opposing tribes.
Yes, I know that’s ad hominem, but really, how can you imagine a man to be a deep thinker of any kind, when that’s what he thinks and publicly defends?
The only reason christians bow to him as a “philosopher” is because he’s on their side, with degrees, but that’s like bowing to Deepak Chopra as a doctor just because he says what you want to believe and he’s got the right degree. WLC is merely another snake oil salesman, but a particularly filthy one.
Not at all. According to Hume’s Fork, all claims about the actual world are justified by empirical evidence, which I take to be (paradigmatically) measurements subject to intersubjective verification. There’s nothing trivial about astronomy, molecular biology, economics, sociology, neuroscience, psychology, and so on.
Pragmatism in epistemology avoids this conclusion by pointing out, firstly, that “not infallible” does not mean “unreliable”, and secondly, that while each of us is not completely reliable (i.e. no one is infallible), we can correct both each other’s mistakes and also our own. Pragmatism takes knowledge to be a collective and also historical process; it is not something that is undertaken all at once by a lone individual. That’s part of the Cartesian fantasy that pragmatists have long followed Hegel and Peirce in rejecting.
That’s not how it works. If you think a response is non-responsive then you need to demonstrate that logically.
I’ve explained in detail what I’m communicating when I answer the question “Are you an atheist?” with “Yes.” You have no rational reason to claim that I am being non-responsive in that case.
Why? It seems to me that an omnipotent God could reveal stuff to me regardless of the reliability of my cognitive faculties. He could do it even is my faculties were unreliable,
That is sort of what the word omnipotent means
peace
Is Hume’s fork a claim about the actual world?
These for the most part are interpretations of the empirical evidence. It’s only when they move beyond measurement that they move beyond the trivial.
peace
Really? That’s what you did when claiming Erik’s responses were non-responsive? I must have missed that.
When I ask whether you are an atheist I want to know whether you believe that God does not exist. If you claim you are an atheist though you do not believe that God does not exist then your response is either misleading or non-responsive.
This is where your attempt to redefine atheism gets you.
No, it’s a claim about all possible worlds. 🙂
All actual worlds must therefore be susceptible to measurements, and measurement requires …?
Fake logic has always been one of Patrick’s strong suits.
Actual, responsive, and meaningful discussion, not so much.
Except you don’t know there is a collective or a history. You merely trust what your individual and current sensory and cognitive faculties are not misleading you in this regard.
and on top of that you assume that induction holds.
Pragmatism does not lead you to assume any of these things you assume them a priori with no justification empirical or otherwise.
Sure it is. History and other minds are not something that you get for free you have to justify your knowledge of them or merely assume their existence.
You have chosen to do the later based only on blind faith as far as I can tell.
peace
There are none so blind . . . .
That’s where asking questions without defining your terms gets you. If you want to know what positive claims I am willing to make in addition to the simple lack of belief shared by all atheists, then you need to ask that explicitly.
If you find any of my arguments unpersuasive, I welcome the opportunity to engage further in discussion with you.
If you just want to construct a false narrative for some personal reason, do carry on.
That’s just you pushing your own definition of atheism on someone else, based on your own definition of god. So if you asked the same question to someone who believes in some other god, and he replied “no, I don’t believe in the christian god” you would label him an atheist even if he would consider himself a theist.
No
I would not label him anything but I would assume that he has like the atheist rejected the true God and chosen to worship one that is false.
It’s a distinction with out a difference
peace
Mung would have to, based on his forced definition of atheism, but logic is a foreign concept to you
Did I happen to mention that logic is foreign concept to you?
I glad that this site has a rule that says we should insure that comments address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster.
If that was not the case I would expect anarchy 😉
peace
Did you happen to notice the quote right above my comment? Hint: it’s your content
I’m sorry I did not realize all we had to do to address the content of a comment was to quote it before we describe the perceived failings of the poster .
I’ll keep that in mind 😉
peace
LMFAO
And logically, he would (and he should) feel exactly the same way about you, for exactly the same reason. I guess the two of you would use the Religious Method of resolving disputes – contemptuously dismissing one another as ignorant fools, neither of you learning a damn thing.
I know what the word atheist means when I use the word. People who make up their own idiosyncratic meanings are the ones who fail to communicate.
not exactly. I’d like to think that the reason I reject false gods is that they don’t have the qualifications necessary for the designation as the one true God.
On the other hand it’s been my experience that the reason that idolaters of all stripes reject the one true God is that it would mean surrendering some of their intellectual autonomy to him. That sort of thing is especially evident on this forum
however I’m always open to correction in this regard if you have some specific god you want to evaluate.
peace
But the only way you have to distinguish one false god from another is your own personal conviction. So why deny him HIS own personal conviction? Do you think he is any less sincere than you are?
So I notice.
By now, I think you have conclusively demonstrated how emphatically false this claim is. YOUR specific god has been evaluated and found imaginary. If you are as open to this as you claim, there wouldn’t be enough left of you to walk and chew gum at the same time.
This is not true at all as witnessed by my frequent “how do you know?” questions. What I’m looking for is whether your chosen deity meets the qualifications nessary in your own worldview.
It has very little to do with my own conviction it’s about your own anti-christian worldview and it’s consistency or lack thereof
This very thread is an attempt by KN to demonstrate that that conclusion is not logically possible. I have yet to see anyone from your side refute his argument.
maybe I missed it.
Could you re-post your refutation of his argument now please
thank you in advance
peace
I agree with that criticism, incidentally. Acceptance of principles like the Fork seem to me an expression of a categorial commitment.
Why do you attach any attributes to “god” beings? Have you accepted that Hart has depicted “god” beings correctly? If so, why?
Personally, I put “gods” in a more abstract category, like “aliens”, with little to no attributes attached, and think of it is one, general, concept behind pretty much all “god” claims. Like the basic concept of an “alien” is the basis for the Superman story, and I wouldn’t try and judge whether “aliens” do, or don’t, exist, based on Superman, and all his attributes.
I wouldn’t label myself, regarding “aliens”, based on Superman, E.T., Groot, Predator, or any other specific “alien”. I’d label myself regarding the base concept, “aliens”, and I’d label myself agnostic. Likewise, I don’t label myself for God, Ptah, Tiamat, etc. I label myself regarding the base concept, “gods”, and I label myself an agnostic.
By “agnostic”, I’m referring to the “agnostic” and associated “agnosticism” laid out by Huxley. His agnosticism is belief in the scientific method, or the justification process which leads to knowledge, and operates as a form of demarcation. No objective/testable evidence = a subjective/unfalsifiable claim. Results: inconclusive. No belief, as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim. Karl Popper also self-identified as an agnostic.
Going back to the beginning, I’d say you still have a whole lot of burden to show why that should be an accepted description of a “god” being. Unless, of course, the whole purpose is just to lay out why it’s not possible to ascertain whether, or not, the equivalent to Superman, exists. If so, it still says nothing about “god” beings.
The accuracy of that deduction is based on the assumption that your cognitive faculties are generally reliable.
Even an omnipotent being cannot do what is logically impossible.
No it’s not a deduction it’s a definition and it’s based on God’s self revelation as omnipotent
I agree, But knowledge is not logically impossible,
If it was you would never know it
peace
Until one or the other has the upper hand politically, in which case the Religious Method of Resolving Disputes gets decidedly bloodier, historically.