Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Resolved: that Peikoff is wrong about agosticism

Rate this topic


NickOtani

Recommended Posts

Yet in the case of electrons we can perform a reduction on our means of knowledge back to our level of sense perception. So in that sense, we do have the "apparatus" necessary to know they exist. The creatures lack such ability because of their limited natures.

But if the computer program were truly sapient, as we are, could it not discover that data was coming into the program through some means? And then speculate a cause for that? Wouldn't the nature of the commands you input into the program be evidence of your existence? Couldn't the program speculate that there are other programs out there, creating the data it recieves? Hell, we don't have any evidence of aliens, but we still see fit to send out space probes and create SETI projects...

I mean, sure, if you never interacted with the program and never left any evidence of your existence then they likely wouldn't discover you, but what does that prove?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was trying to show that the beings couldn't necessarily discover me. I thought that Kendall was saying that if beings had the conceptual faculty, perception, and the ability to act upon their world that those three characteristics would be sufficient to enable them to breach any barrier and discover their Greek god. I had to show that the virtual world was such that this was not necessarily the case, that the "barrier" of the virtual world was impenetrable despite being in the same universe as mine - that with virtual worlds, the frame of reference can indeed be an impenetrable barrier to the discovery of a transcendent God even by creatures possessing those three characteristics, due to their limited natures.

Your point about speculation is interesting. Are you suggesting that a rational being could reasonably speculate as to the existence of a Greek god given certain evidence? I suppose that the answer is yes, if that's where the evidence pointed, but we had better be careful to employ our methods of induction scrupulously, eh?

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had to show that the virtual world was such that this was not necessarily the case, that the "barrier" of the virtual world was impenetrable despite being in the same universe as mine - that with virtual worlds, the frame of reference can indeed be an impenetrable barrier to the discovery of a transcendent [editor's note: this means "Greek"] God even by creatures possessing those three characteristics, due to their limited natures.

But, you see, every time you do something to affect their world, you cross that barrier and this makes it possible for them to discover your existence..

Your point about speculation is interesting. Are you suggesting that a rational being could reasonably speculate as to the existence of a Greek god given certain evidence? I suppose that the answer is yes, if that's where the evidence pointed, but we had better be careful to employ our methods of induction scrupulously, eh?
You got it. And by the way, the term "Greek god" is interchangable with "powerful alien," as in many of the god-like aliens presented in Star Trek and other sci-fi.

God-like aliens...man, do I hate God-like aliens. I'll trade a critter for a God-like alien any day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The creatures lack such ability because of their limited natures.

hmm. the implication here is that to discover a Greek God, a creature might have to evolve an "uber" cognitive capacity that it doesn't yet possess. I'm fine with that (I think), but the God must still be Greek and as such, has no bearing on my philosophy. Nor does it mean that the cognitive capacity is impossible, since obviously the Greek God will need to possess it, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By limited nature I was referring primarily to the limitations of the creatures' sense perceptions vis-a-vis the world they inhabit. As I replied to Inspector above, we can know that electrons exist because we are able to reduce our means of knowing that, ultimately, to the level of our senses. By contrast, the beings might have (virtually) unlimited cognitive capacity yet not be able to conceive of very much on account of their limited perceptive abilities (in this example, limited to the ability to perceive themselves and other such objects in the virtual world).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By limited nature I was referring primarily to the limitations of the creatures' sense perceptions vis-a-vis the world they inhabit. As I replied to Inspector above, we can know that electrons exist because we are able to reduce our means of knowing that, ultimately, to the level of our senses. By contrast, the beings might have (virtually) unlimited cognitive capacity yet not be able to conceive of very much on account of their limited perceptive abilities (in this example, limited to the ability to perceive themselves and other such objects in the virtual world).

An unlimited amount of a "certain type" of cognitive capacity right? Is this like definiting an animal have an unlimited amount of cognitive ability to store automated behaviors, and instincts? My answer would be if they cannot evolve into the cognitive capacity necessary to ultimately indirectly perceive the Greek God, then they cannot know about him.

However, what I do know is that the capacity must exist, and there entities in your world who possess it. Namely, your God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An unlimited amount of a "certain type" of cognitive capacity right? Is this like definiting an animal have an unlimited amount of cognitive ability to store automated behaviors, and instincts? My answer would be if they cannot evolve into the cognitive capacity necessary to ultimately indirectly perceive the Greek God, then they cannot know about him.

However, what I do know is that the capacity must exist, and there entities in your world who possess it. Namely, your God.

No, I did not mean an impaired cognitive capacity. To clarify, the beings are programmed to deal with their percepts in a perfectly rational manner. They have the finest internal processing algorithm possible. They are capable of abstraction and learning. Best of all, they are free of volition, and can never go wrong. As to whether they could "evolve", of course they cannot evolve in the Darwinian sense (because they don't reproduce), but they can most certainly increase their knowledge, integrate new experiences, etc. Their limitation is their senses and their limited capacity to act in their world. Those things are part of their immutable nature, and cannot be improved upon.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I wasn't referring to "impairment" per se. At this point, we are probably beating this horse beyond its usefullness, but let me see.

Integrate it with reality.

A consciousness such as man with limited senses do NOT limit his ability to understand reality.

A consciousness with a certain cognitive capacity MAY BE limited from knowing reality.

I personally don't think that anyting beyond conceptualization would be necessary, but if you'd like to assert such a thing, bring your evidence of it. :lol:

Conceptualization is what unbounds man's limited cognitive abilities. If you are asking what is the conceptual heirarchy that would lead from their direct perception to you, well that is a function of their consciousness, right.

Philosophy wont give you the mechanism, so I'm not sure what else it to be gained from this, and it would be better in fact to stick to the real world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proper immediate response to the question of god is: there is no evidence for such a thing; therefore I absolutely refuse to consider it as even a possibility. After consideration of all the things the religionists tell you about god, the proper response is: this concept contradicts a number of basic facts that I know and which are perceptually self-evident; therefore I absolutely refuse to consider it as even a possibility. Both responses represent the atheist, and they are both correct responses within their context. The former represents the "weak" atheist, and the latter the "strong" atheist.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

y_feldblum,

That is precisely correct. All agnostics are incorrect. If any "agnostic"'s position is that of your first paragraph, then they are NOT in fact an agnostic and the problem is that they are using the wrong term for themselves.

Nick,

Anyone who is in y_feldblum's second paragraph is indeed a coward and we will continue to call a spade a spade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick, Can one make a distinctions between belief and knowledge claims and between weak and strong non-Potterists, those who reject belief in Harry Potter's existence but make no knowledge claim and those who do make a knowledge claim that Potter does not exist? Or is there something special about a "god claim" as opposed to a "Potter claim" or a "green goblin claim"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick, You've simply avoided replying to the substantial points.

First, you criticize the assumption that when someone says "God" they mean some type of super-natural being, saying that maybe they mean humans or some such. Then, you turn around to say that maybe God exists. These two points of yours are not actually part of a single logical argument, but are juxtapositioned to give the appearance of one.

If God means humans, humans exist, let's shut this thread down...it would be downright stupid to for humans to be discussing whether humans exist or not.

If God means some type of supernatural entity, then answer the objections to that instead of saying that someone might mean "humans" when they say "God". Is there a particular concept of God that you want to discuss, or does your argument amount to the following: one cannot say that Maka-laka does not exist, because one does not know what that means? Since you started the thread, what do you mean by it? Or, what meaning of other people are you discussing here? Without that common ground, continuing further would be futile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, not all people mean the same thing when they discuss God. Spinoza's God is much different from Franklin Graham's God.

When people say God, they mean God: the supernatural, impossible, Christian God. That is not an unfair assumption in our society today.

"God" may also be used to refer to humans, rational beings, subjects as opposed to objects.

To be perfectly blunt, that statement is retarded. When people say "spoon," they may also be referring to anti-hemorrhoid cream. When people say "television," they may be referring to phone books.

Yeah, right!

I don't know what planet you're from, but when people say "God," they mean "God!" Maybe there is some guy out there who says "I believe in God," but means, "I believe in toaster," but we have padded cells for people like that. Their lexicon has no bearing on discussions of this kind.

I'm really racking my brain to even think of an example of what you're talking about. Do you mean if some nutcase declares, "I am god of all the squirrels?" If so, then that kind of statement is not really one of agnosticism, and is not really covered by this discussion.

If it seems like I am in contempt of this "argument" that you have put forth, then appearances are not deceiving. You should know better than to say things like that, NickOtani. If you really meant something totally different, then by all means clarify, but in that case I could be equally critical of your incomprehensibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector, very often it has been my experience that when someone asks me about God, and I ask what do they mean by God they will simply say "a higher power" (than myself). That is about as broad as it gets, so it is not so obvious to me that God is always understood to mean the impossible God of Christianity.

However, Peikoff's point about agnostics didn't require the God claim to be transferred a cognitive context and proven impossible. It was enough that the claim be arbitrary, and the agnostic was wrong for not rejecting the arbitrary firmly but rather entertaining it as a possibility. I think that is the correct way to frame the debate.

Peikoff does have a strong point to make here about man's relationship to reality and having confidence to make a knowledge claim of some kind in response to one that is arbitrary - that "I don't know" is never a sufficient answer - and that this ultimately is what vindicates his point because it does apply to all agnostics.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeker,

I agree that that is the correct framework for the debate.

As for you meeting people who say "a higher power," I wonder if that "higher power" also includes all the contradictions of the Christian God. Usually if I ask someone if they believe in God, and they aren't Christians per se, then they say, "well, I believe in a higher power." When I ask for clarification, they simply mean that they believe in the (Judeo-)Christian God, but maybe not that he did everything the bible claims he did. They still believe he "created the universe," and has all of the impossible powers and so forth. Nobody that I've ever seen has meant that they believe in Zeus or Tiamat or an Alien progenator race or anything else that doesn't totally contradict the axioms of existence and identity.

If you could provide even one example to someone who answered "Yes" to the "God question" who didn't believe in either the JC-God or something equivalent, then that would probably help. Note that any being that "created the universe" counts, because that implies that this God is apart from the universe and the universe is defined as everything that exists, including the being which is supposedly apart from it.

Also, notice the "well." Gramatically, it indicates that they understand that "God" means "Judeo-Christian God." If they thought that "God" could be used generically to mean any higher power, then the "well," wouldn't be necessary. They would say, "Yes, I believe in a higher power" or simply "yes."

So I still think that it is a completely proper assumption in today's society to think, if someone says "God," that they mean the Judeo-Christian God, or at the very least something that is the same for the sake of argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... by God they will simply say "a higher power" (than myself). That is about as broad as it gets, so it is not so obvious to me that God is always understood to mean the impossible God of Christianity.
When people say "higher power" they almost invariably also mean "higher consciousness". God, to them is something more than (say) gravity, or light, or heat... it is some type of consciousness. If one strips the Judeo-Christian God of his earthly incarnation, he is nothing more than that either, and not any more or less possible than a more plain "higher consciousness".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I still think that it is a completely proper assumption in today's society to think, if someone says "God," that they mean the Judeo-Christian God, or at the very least something that is the same for the sake of argument.

I concede that point. I can't offer any counter-examples, and your arguments are persuasive. The God that people refer to is an impossibility. They may not realize that this is so, however, which brings us back to the arbitrary claim and the central point at issue here, which is how to properly deal with arbitrary claims. This is a matter that deserves a forceful response. Some agnostics may dismiss a belief in God as arbitrary, but all agnostics are tolerant of the assertion of such claims. I believe that this is the key distinction that Peikoff was making. The proper response requires unambiguously condemning the assertion of arbitrary claims. Saying "I don't know" doesn't do that. At issue is not what the agnostic believes, but how the agnostic treats the person making the claim. The response in the context of that relationship may be courageous (risking discord) or cowardly (avoiding discord, in the case of the agnostic).

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...