NickOtani

(y_feldblum)An agnostic says: I am open to entertaining god as a possibility, even in the face of, in the first case, lack of any evidence whatsoever, or in the second case, the realization that god contradicts facts. This is dangerous, and cowardly, because it is, straightforwardly, the statement: I do not have the ability to discern between what's real and what isn't. (Nick)I disagree with the statement above. It is a strawman definition, easy to knock over. As I said in my prior post, some agnostics may be exactly this way, but to characterize all of them that way is to commit the same fallacy associated with sterio-typing. Also, I made clear in my first post in this thread that there are some definitions of God that I would deny as knowledge. However, not all people mean the same thing when they discuss God. Spinoza's God is much different from Franklin Graham's God. "God" may also be used to refer to humans, rational beings, subjects as opposed to objects. It would be wrong for me to say, as a knowledge claim, that humankind or nature doesn't exist. Until I know how God is being defined, I should reserve judgment. To not do so is to jump to a conclusion, also a fallacious way of thinking. I've written about how believe in a supernatural god, as an answer to unknown questions, can inhibit authentic learning. I think religious bigotry kept us in a dark ages for more than a thousand years. However, knee-jerk reactions to any mention of God can be just as bad. Just because there is no evidence that something exists does not mean it doesn't. It means there is no evidence that it does. Burden of proof is a serious thing. Imagine going to court being accused of committing some terrible crime. There is no evidence proving that you are innocent, so you are convicted. Is that just? Is it objective? Things have been proven to be true after a time. No evidence is not necessarily evidence of lack. This does not mean I believe in things that can't be proven not to exist. It means the burden of proof belongs to those who say it does, and it is not met when they say it cannot be proven not to exist. bis bald, Nick

(Free Capitalist)I think you're raising a straw man here (not to mention making unnecessary distinctions). (Nick)I am making distinctions between belief and knowledge claims and between weak and strong atheists, those who reject belief but make no knowledge claim and those who do make a knowledge claim that God does not exist. I think these distinctions can be made and are useful in this philosophical dialogue. Identifying all agnostics as fence sitters who say “I don’t know either way,” is not careful. There certainly are agnostics like that, but not all agnostics can be painted with this same broad brush. Huxley presented an agnostic who would be consistent with the weak atheist, the atheist who rejects the belief in God but does not say, as a knowledge claim, that God does not exist. This is not sitting on the fence or being cowardly about taking a stand. Again, there are some agnostics who are cowards, but to characterize all agnostics this way is like saying all Italians are members of the mafia; all white people can’t jump; all black people have rhythm; all policemen eat doughnuts; all Asians are good at math. There can be more negative and dangerous stereo-types. They are fallacies. They are the kind of fallacy Peikoff is making by saying all agnostics are cowards. Bis bald, Nick

Leonard Peikoff defines and judges agnosticism, in “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series 1976, Lecture 6. He says the agnostic view point poses as fair, impartial, and balanced, but then treats arbitrary claims as ideas proper to consider and then regretfully says, “I don’t know,” instead of dismissing them out of hand. Also, on the burden-of-proof issue, the agnostic demands proof of a negative where there is no evidence for the positive. Peikoff, ends strongly by saying, “The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack. The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be.” I think Peikoff is wrong about this. He is not distinguishing knowledge claims from belief. He is not distinguishing strong atheism and theism from weak atheism and theism, and he is getting mixed up about burden-of-proof. I contend that the weak atheist position is an agnostic position which has no burden of proof and is reasonable, not at all cowardly. Let’s define some terms: A theist believes in God. An atheist rejects a belief in God. There is a difference between knowledge and belief. Plato said that one can believe something that isn't true. This is not the case with knowledge. If one claims to know something and it turns out to be not true, then it wasn't really knowledge, was it? On the other hand, some say knowledge is just justified belief, belief that has high degree of certainty. We can stipulate that this is what we mean by knowledge. We have a high degree of certainty that the floor will not collapse under us when we take a step. It is a leap of faith, but not unsupported faith. We have a high degree of certainty that the Pythagorean Theorem will hold up in Asia as it does in Spokane. We can demonstrate it. This kind of knowledge is objective, not personal nor subject to our wishes and beliefs. Yes, it is possible to have personal knowledge which can't be proven to others. We are concerned here with the kind of knowledge which can be demonstrated and agreed on by rational people in any culture. To make a knowledge claim for God's existence is stronger than saying one believes God exists. The knowledge claim needs support of evidence and reasoning. Many theists claim faith but not knowledge. If knowledge, then no need for faith. Some theists claim knowledge. Burden is on them to prove. They don't prove the existence of God by saying if we can't prove He doesn't exist, then He does. If no knowledge, than agnostic. An agnostic, in this sense, can be either theist or atheist. An atheist also can be agnostic with regard to knowledge. If one rejects a belief in God but makes no knowledge claim, then weak atheist. A weak atheist has an advantage over a strong theist. He has no burden to prove anything. If an atheist makes a knowledge claim that no God exists, that is a stronger position. It needs to meet a burden of proof. (These terms, weak and strong, apply only to the kind of position it is. They are misleading. A weak theist may have strong commitment to his or her faith. It is just considered weak because it is not an objective knowledge claim. This is true also of the weak atheist. The weak atheist may have a perfectly rational position that one cannot know certain things. It does not mean the atheist is weak in his or her beliefs.) We can only argue if reason for belief or knowledge claims can be supported. All things being equal, the theist has the burden of proof. If one believes in ghosts, a non-believer doesn't have to prove there are no ghosts, only that reasons for believing in ghosts are inadequate. However, once the non-believer claims as objective truth that ghosts do not exist, then he or she has a burden. I am a strong atheist when it comes to definitions of god which are contradictory and we are using logic as a standard. If it is meaningful to say square circles do not exist, then it is meaningful to say the greatest conceivable being doesn't exist. Also the all good and all powerful God who co-exists with evil cannot logically exist. However, there may be things I do not yet know about how the universe got started or how life came to be, but I don't fill the gaps with God. In that case, I am a weak atheist, an agnostic. And, I’m honest, not a fence sitter or, as Leonard Peikoff calls me, a coward. I simply reject the belief and knowledge claim of the existence of God and place the burden of proof on those who claim reasons for belief or knowledge of God. bis bald, Nick

I don't think I'm obnoxious and pompous but others may get that impression. Was Hoard Roark obnoxious and pompous? Was Rand? And, I don't think those other folks are tolerant. If they think they are, they are phoney. And, as I said, I'm tryng to find people I can challenge and who can challenge me. I never said nor implied that I was throwing bones to anyone. However, yes, you may be name-calling, insulting, derisive, evasive, ban-happy, mindless followers, like those others were. If you ban me in short order, you will prove the truth of such a proposition. Am I supposed to back down or something? Nick

Of course I do plan to use the debate forum. I think debate can be productive and is better than flying airplanes into buildings or dropping bombs on innocent people. However, if such views get me banned from here in short order, I'll know that this board is no more interested in truth and free speech than those other boards. bis bald, Nick

One may see me on the General Discussion board of the Atlas Forums, a TOC board, and I've just been kicked off a few other Objectvists' boards, Objectivist Living (OL) and the Rebirth of Reason (RoR). There is also my own board, NickOtani'sNeo-Objectvism, off of which I need not worry about getting kicked. (How do you like that sentence structure?) I am not an orthodox Objectivist and am sure that Rand and Peikoff would not approve of me. However, I do respect Rand's individualism. I'd like to be my own individual and can't do that as her complete follower. I like her emphasis on reason and egoism, and I can support capitalism and natural rights. However, I have problems accepting unbroken cause and effect and also free-will, as Rand does, even though I think it can be done with the incorporation of a little Sartrian Existentialism. I have problems with her rejection of the analytic/synthetic dichotomy and its many varients, which I think are helpful in understanding metaphysics and epistemology. I think she and Peikoff have problems rejecting both idealism and materialism, and I think Peikoff is wrong about defining all agnostics as cowards afraid to take a position. He is not taking into consideration the distiction between belief claims and knowledge claims and the real burden of proof issue, but perhaps I can talk more about these things later, if I am not promptly kicked off this board. I would like to challenge Objectivists on this board and invite them to challenge me in proper debates without insults, derision, and evasion (or deletion and banning). The so-called "Objectivists" on those other boards couldn't do this. Can you? People really tend to dislike me on those other boards. I don't know why. I hope not to have personality problems here. Can you get along with a critical non-Objectivist, a Neo-Objectivist? bis bald, Nick