Freedomain Radio

You make a very strong mathematical case for the (very small) possibility/probability of there being a "god" (whatever that means).

But, perhaps, you could help me to understand why you see the need to find such a god?

Is it so that you will know how the universe was created? If it turns out that it was created by a "god", would that set your mind at rest? Or would you then want to know who created that god? If, as theists believe, that god was not created but just "is", then how much more exploration and explanation would you then be tempted to undertake to prove that assertion? And how is that different from the universe not being created but just "is"? I personally can't see why, if the universe itself is not accepted as first cause, that there would not be an infinite regression of first causes through a hierarchy of prior-cause gods?!

Or is it so that you would feel less responsible for your actions? Or is it so that you would somehow (god knows how?) categorically know what was right or wrong? Or is it so that you could question someone on what you should do tomorrow?

I just can't see why anyone would need a god! And given the infinitesimally small odds on there actually being one, why anyone would spend more than a minute of their lifetime searching for, or debating the possible form or existence of, such a hypothetical "god"!

Can you help me to understand the agnostic's need(s)?

If I understand this correctly, you were saying that you do not feel comfortable making the positive assertion that gods do not exist, because of the possibility that they may be discovered in some future manner.

I think that it all hinges on the question of the definition of a god - if it means "some form of superior intelligence in the universe," then I'm quite sure that such an entity will be found, but I also do not believe that that is what the word really means.

Most generally accepted definitions of gods are "square circles," i.e. self-contradictory arguments which self-detonate.

I certainly agree that reasonable people should be very conservative about stating positive certainties about negatives, but I am comfortable, for instance, saying that no scientific truth will ever be verified without the scientific method, and I am comfortable in the same way saying that self-contradictory entities such as gods and angels and devils do not exist.

Stefan, my point is that what is classified as "homo agnosticus" should be relabeled, since there really is a valid agnostic view from a purely probabilistic standpoint that does not require a yes/no answer to the extent of the truth of the statement "1 + 1 = 2".  For all practical purposes, I'm a godless person.  I just prefer rigor to the, in my view, convenient "close enough" positive atheism.  In light of my OP, the average self-styled "agnostic" just seems rather silly.  I think it's better to show religious people how terrible their odds in Pascal's wager are, rather than shout "THERE IS NO GOD"

FreeSpirit: There are paradoxes abound in reality.  Why do you think so many people believe with absolute certainty that this or that?  As for me, I don't get anything out of being agnostic, just as I don't get anything (directly, at least) out of understanding Q.M.  I just believe it's the right thing to believe.  The correct approach to life's greatest problem, if you will.  I don't really have too many "spiritual" needs anymore now that I have a decent grasp on my own mind and its meta-programming capabilities.  It's just a better bet to not play the game, in my opinion.  I have no expectation of some logic/physical paradigm-defying deity to appear ever, just like how I have no expectation of an experiment that will disprove Q.M. (how would that work in the first place, one might ponder).  My "theory" simply accounts for that \epsilon in exchange for not finding a positive/ negative answer to the question.  That brings up another point.  Why are you an atheist?  Why do you have to answer the question?

I guess the taoist in me would ask the question: if all the stupid religions and superstitions in the world didn't exist, would you call yourself an atheist?

[deleted]

RHT808:

That brings up another point.  Why are you an atheist?  Why do you have to answer the question?

For me it's not even a question!

Firstly, I guess I am (and have been since a very young age) satisfied with living the ideals of the Atheist's Wager:

Atheist's Wager:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

Note: that last part about the benevolent god is gibberish, but I've left it in for the sake of completeness of the original quote 

Secondly, I see the universe as simply a self-organised spread of energy - and therefore not requiring any "god" for its formation, organisation, contents or purpose.

From micro to macro, there is nothing but self-organised energy. Q.M. provides a theory for determining the notional location and interactions of energy quanta that make up the so-called "fundamental particles" (which are themselves concepts rather than actual particles). Those collections of energy quanta then self-organise into the atomic particles (again, concepts rather than actual particles). Those atomic particles then self-organise into atoms (again, concepts). Atoms self-organise into crystals or molecules (the first level of self-organisation that we can actually "see"). Crystals self-organise into heavenly bodies and molecules self-organise into cellular organisms. Cellular organisms self-organise into complex life forms. Complex life forms self-organise into societies ...........

That's my (somewhat simplified) layman's understanding of the world and there just doesn't seem to be a place in there for a "god". So the question doesn't arise for me.

BTW, welcome to the board.

Fair, but might your views be in parallel with Hilbert's assertion that "Existence is freedom from contradiction"?  Also, I'd go beyond the "Atheist's Wager" and claim that if there is, somehow, a deity, it is not one worth worshipping.  Why would a benevolent deity design a universe of entropy?

 Hi, welcome to the board.

RHT808:

I guess the taoist in me would ask the question: if all the stupid religions and superstitions in the world didn't exist, would you call yourself an atheist?

 There would be no need to have that mind-set of god or no god, if this were the case. There just wouldn't be any reference point. You wouldn't need the term 'Agnostic' in reference to religion. It could end up being used in a,or many, different ways, as 'agnost' means 'not known', and really has no particular reference to deities except for it's common use.

We don't require a label to not believe in ghosts. Or unicorns. Or jin. Or any of other thousands of things that we are sure do not exist. Just because we have heard of them, and there are countless stories worldwide that children know, that have similar stories in other cultures and languages. We don't require belief in these other things, in spite of generations handing these stories down. Why do we have this equivocation only when it comes to dieties? Why do we ridicule earlier religions, but find ours sound? How do we know Coyote did not create the earth, but an invisible intangible sapient being did?

But I digress. If a label is required, how about secular? Or humanist? Or both? Just be careful how you say it!

Great question, by the way.

I assume we can agree to disagree on certain words.  Certainly, I would admit, as I have all along, that my labeling myself an "agnostic" is precisely because I take the position of not knowing, in a very rigorous definition of what "knowing" is, the non-existence of this and that, and opt incredibly great odds in Pascal's bullshit wager (assuming that eternal damnation and subsequent suffering or what-have you is not REALLY valued at negative infinity, because that to me is utter nonsense) that get better every uneventful day.  I do so only because that's how I view all of science.  It is both tragic and beautiful, to have such consistency.  Perhaps my physics prof in my sophomore year at college put it best (specifically about probability): "We physicists throw something over the fence to the mathematicians and they throw back something completely devoid of any meaning whatsoever."

 What do you think of Smith's Wager? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism:_The_Case_Against_God

I just read it.  Perhaps a parallel approach from my point of view would be this: life is a huge but (I'm assuming) finite stack of chips.  Each chip represents a cycle of a thought process in my brain.  I can chose how many of each chip to "wager" on whatever beliefs there are available.  Since it is so improbable that, say, that XENU IS YOUR INTERGALACTIC OVERLORD AND THE ONLY WAY TO RID YOUR BODY OF BODY-THETANS IS TO GIVE EVERY LAST DIME YOU POSESS TO TOM CRUISE, it makes no sense to do anything but wager every last chip on atheism.  Does this make me an atheist?  Again, for all practical purposes, yes.  But the point I'm trying to make is that the process by which I came to that conclusion is different than that of the person who positively 100% believes in atheism.

RHT808,

Do square circles exist, or is it possible do you think for square circles to exist?

Why do we feel such a need to label?