Resolved: that Peikoff is wrong about agosticism

Debates
1

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

2

I think you’re raising a straw man here (not to mention making unnecessary distinctions). As you yourself quote, Dr. Peikoff states:

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.

This directly comports to your view that the proper stance towards the God issue is to reject it as arbitrary. This is indeed what a proper atheistic position would be. An atheist does not demand proof of a negative, merely a rejection of accepting the false idea. An agnostic, on the other hand, does not reject the God idea; he says, “I don’t know eiher way”.

3

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.

FC has it right. This last para you wrote is where you go exceedingly wrong. Those claiming belief in God are not “asserting a positive”, they are articulating a non-sequitir. Your response to them shoudl never be to prove their positive. but rather to reject it out of hand. To ask them to assert a positive is to give a non-sequitir status of a valid proposition. See my and David Odden’s response in the matrix thread here. http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p…st&p=129370

If you take the metaphysical axioms as correct, there is nothing that you have to ever learn about nature that will overturn them. Hence there is nothing you will ever learn that will validate a God.

Peikoff is correct. Giving credence to the arbitrary as if it were a proposition will make you unsure of yourself at exactly the time you will need it most, and at the time when it is the easiest to defend yourself.

4

One correction in your definitions is that an atheist does not reject a belief in god, he knows that god does not exist. From that you get the rejection of the belief in god (since a rational person who knows that X does not exist rejects belief in X, for any X). Then an agnostic would be one who does not know that God does not exist, and who is aware of his ignorance. From this it follows that there cannot be an atheist agnostic.

The essential difference between an agnostic and a theist is that an agnostic is more self-aware – they are aware of their lack of knowledge. A theist has the same lack of knowledge, but in addition has an unfounded belief that falsely implies having knowledge. Hence an agnostic theist would also be a contradiction, in that a person cannot be self-aware and self-ignorant of the same thing.

Burden of proof issues are kind of sticky, but I would say that the burden of proof has to be shouldered by the person who denies what we know, namely that god does not exist. That then puts the burden on the agnostic and on the theist. (The theist will of course have the additional impossible burden of proving that god exists). Both stripes of non-atheist must address the fact that we know that the putative nature of god contradicts all known evidence.

I am, personally, an agnostic when it comes to magnetic monopoles. If I knew more physics, I might become an atheist, but I’m stuck with what I know (or, in this case, don’t know). I can list a lot of other things that I don’t know, but that would be boring. None of that would even marginally make me thing that god exists, i.e. would make me reject the universal evidence that god does not exist.

I’m curious why you do not know that god is nonexistent.

5

Sorry about the prior posting error.

Nick, I think you make your case well and it seems to me to be the only logical position to have on this matter. My interpretation of Ayn Rand’s body of comments on this subject including her oral statements made in interviews is that your position is one which Ayn Rand would not find unsympathetic. I am at a loss why individuals with self-esteem who are admirers of Ayn Rand would not object more forcefully to distasteful statements like Leonard Peikoff’s maintaining that agnostics are cowards. It’s easy to call people names. It’s a little harder to present logical arguments on complex topics which in my opinion Leonard Peikoff certainly does not do in his writing about agnosticism.

David ends his post with “I’m curious why you do not know that god is nonexistent.”

I assume this last sentence is intended seriously and not meant to be amusing? If so, then I would respond to David that I’m curioius why you know that god is nonexistent.

My own position as an agnostic who doesn’t think this is even a topic which requires much attention since any attention paid is likely to be time wasted is that since I have seen no evidence that god exists nor do I find Darwin’s Theory of Evolution compelling in its entirety, I am not aware that anyone has proved or disproved “god’s” existence definitively. As I wasn’t around when the world began I am not aware of what transpired and it doesn’t appear anyone else is either. It is perfectly consistent with rejecting mysticism and embracing reason to acknowledge ignorance as to how the world began.

6

Reality is all that exists. Anything and everything in reality is available to our senses, if only with the aid of instruments. (This last fact follows from the laws of identity and causality.)

God, as defined, is supernatural - part of a super-reality, and not part of reality. Neither God, nor any of God’s attributes or actions, is not available to our senses, whether with or without the aid of instruments. God does not exist.

Without seeing any factual, observational, logical evidence to support a theory of God, one is left with ignoring any alleged possibility of God’s existence as arbitrary. One must return to what one does have factual, observational, logical evidence to support: namely, God’s nonexistence, following from the fact that God’s existence in reality would violate the definition of God as well as the laws of identity and causality.

7

…I have seen no evidence that god exists nor do I find Darwin’s Theory of Evolution compelling in its entirety, I am not aware that anyone has proved or disproved “god’s” existence definitively. As I wasn’t around when the world began I am not aware of what transpired and it doesn’t appear anyone else is either. It is perfectly consistent with rejecting mysticism and embracing reason to acknowledge ignorance as to how the world began.

Any rational list of the possible ways the world began would not include god. So why assume that until you have omniscient knowledge of the universe you have to suspend judgement about god?

I am not aware of anyone who has proved or disproved difinitivly that there is a convention of gremlins on the far side of the moon studying Hegel’s writing. What is your stand on the gremlin convention? Or do you suspend judgment of the issue because you don’t know the history of the universe yet?

I wasn’t around when the world began either, but that doesn’t mean I need to accept as plausible the idea that a god created it. That is bazaar.

And what exactly have you studied that leaves you unconvinced of evolution? The bible? :huh:

btw, I’m totally with peikoff. Even on the coward part. :stuck_out_tongue: Ayn Rand is (was) too, since she was around when he was doing the course on objectivism and she approved it.

brandon

Those who deny [Aristotle’s] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Metaphysics

:lol: I like that!

Aristotle’s first principle: A is A, a thing is itself - it cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time.

I think someone in this thread :stuck_out_tongue: may be violating or forgetting or ignoring (i.e. denying) this very valuable axiom. :o

brandon

8

If so, then I would respond to David that I’m curioius why you know that god is nonexistent.

I’m a bit taken aback by this: I don’t know where to start. But let me start anyhow. God is (said to be) omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, infallible, eternal, and he created all that exists. But I know many things about the nature of existence. Every existent is finite in extent; every existent has a nature which defines it and which distinguish it from things that it is not. I know that existence is non-contradictory. I know that no being can be omnipotent and omniscient, since that entails the power to create an unsolvable puzzle (contradicting the assumption of omnipotence). To “be everywhere” contradicts the fact that all existents are finite in extent. To be the universal creator, one cannot be exist, because any cause must exist prior to its effect, by assumption god created all that existed, god must therefore have preceded the act of creating all that exists, and god therefore must not be an existent.

As far as Peikoff’s coward-condemnation is concerned, I doubt that he is applying that condemnation to small children or the brain-damaged. However, it is inconceivable to me that a normal educated adult could claim to be an agnostic, except if they are being an intellectual coward. This goes beyond lacking evidence: you have the clear evidence that it’s false. What, is this the first time anybody has pointed this out to you?

9

it is inconceivable to me that a normal educated adult could claim to be an agnostic, except if they are being an intellectual coward. This goes beyond lacking evidence: you have the clear evidence that it’s false. What, is this the first time anybody has pointed this out to you?

Well let’s be clear here, Dr. Peikoff does not say anyone who’s not an atheist is a coward, merely that an agnostic is one. An atheist or a religious person are principled. An agnostic is simply too weak to stand by principle.

10

David,

If I understand you correctly, you are making a positive claim that God does not exist based upon the fact that existents are known to have finite extent and other such observations. But isn’t that an evidentiary claim based on limited observations of the nature of existents as we perceive them that at best allows us to say that the claim of God’s existence is arbitrary? That therefore the claim must be dismissed out of hand as per se unreasonable? That is not the same as allowing the validity of the question and then claiming proof of an answer, is it? Or have I misunderstood your position?

11

David,

If I understand you correctly, you are making a positive claim that God does not exist based upon the fact that existents are known to have finite extent and other such observations. But isn’t that an evidentiary claim based on limited observations of the nature of existents as we perceive them that at best allows us to say that the claim of God’s existence is arbitrary? That therefore the claim must be dismissed out of hand as per se unreasonable? That is not the same as allowing the validity of the question and then claiming proof of an answer, is it? Or have I misunderstood your position?

I think this is the proper context in which the issue of god should be framed.

12

If I understand you correctly, you are making a positive claim that God does not exist based upon the fact that existents are known to have finite extent and other such observations. But isn’t that an evidentiary claim based on limited observations of the nature of existents as we perceive them that at best allows us to say that the claim of God’s existence is arbitrary?

The claim is stronger. If the claim merely lacked evidence, as in the case of gremlins studying Hegel, then no contradiction would arise if a person were to advance convincing evidence of the arbitrary. But god would be a fundamental metaphysical contradiction.

13

The claim is stronger. If the claim merely lacked evidence, as in the case of gremlins studying Hegel, then no contradiction would arise if a person were to advance convincing evidence of the arbitrary. But god would be a fundamental metaphysical contradiction.

But the claim does lack evidence, doesn’t it?

14

The claim is stronger. If the claim merely lacked evidence, as in the case of gremlins studying Hegel, then no contradiction would arise if a person were to advance convincing evidence of the arbitrary. But god would be a fundamental metaphysical contradiction.

Everything we know about the nature of existence is based upon our limited observations to date. God is not (as I understand it) defined in such a way as to contradict that which is observed to exist, but merely to be in addition to it (i.e. not yet observed). Consequently, the claim to the existence of God is merely arbitrary. What specific aspect(s) of the definition of God presents a fundamental metaphysical contradiction?

15

Hello Brandon.

I thought about your statements and questions and here are my responses.

Any rational list of the possible ways the world began would not include god. So why assume that until you have omniscient knowledge of the universe you have to suspend judgement about god?

I think the basis of scientific inquiry on the part of many of the most brilliant inventors and scientists is to exclude nothing from the range of possibilities when looking for a solution. So the “rational list of the possible ways the world began” should exclude little, in my opinion, until someone comes up with a proof. What you may think is a rational list may not coincide with what another thinks is a rational list, and although some lists may appear and in fact be totally irrational, which of the better seeming choices is the most rational cannot be known until a proof is submitted as to the actual way the world began. I think it is rational to think such proof will never be submitted although I don’t entirely exclude that possibility. Most great inventors went “outside” the box which is why they were the ones who came up with the solutions.

Whereas someone who thought that thunder was caused because the gods were angry could be refuted with the evidence which proves otherwise, any theory about how the world began cannot be refuted with similar hard, cold evidence.

I do not assume that I will ever have omniscient knowledge of the universe. I also don’t assume anyone else will have ominiscient knowledge of the universe. I wouldn’t describe it as " suspending judgment about god" because it appears none of us are ever going to have omniscient knowledge of the universe so none or us are going to ever have to make a final judgment on the origin of the world in order to live a rational life.

<i>I am not aware of anyone who has proved or disproved difinitivly that there is a convention of gremlins on the far side of the moon studying Hegel’s writing. What is your stand on the gremlin convention?</i>

I’m not aware of any gremlin proof either. I’d bet most of my money, but not my life, that there are no gremlins on any side of the moon. Judging from some recent revelations about the things of which large numbers of US citizens are capable (as a “for instance”) I wouldn’t drop dead from shock to hear gremlins have been found to be living on the far side of the moon. So my stand on the gremlin convention is that there certainly is no reason to think moonie gremlins exist and there certainly is no reason to think some sort of non-interventionist god exists (which is the type of god many think may exist if one does) but stranger things have probably happened than either of those possibilities. As a matter of fact I think know of some. :slight_smile:

<i> Or do you suspend judgment of the issue because you don’t know the history of the universe yet?</i>

No, I choose not to spend time making a judgment because I know that neither I nor nobody will ever know the entire history of the universe.

<i>I wasn’t around when the world began either, but that doesn’t mean I need to accept as plausible the idea that a god created it. That is bazaar.</i>

I don’t think anyone is asking you to accept anything as plausible. Each person decides for himself when and if he wants to make a judgment about any particular thing. I think we can both agree that there were many things about which Einstein never made judgments and would have no doubt resisted even if pressed to do so. I don’t think he probably would have been all that amused if someone said he was a coward because he failed to make those judgments, although perhaps, taking into account that famous picture of him sticking out his tonuge, he may have been amused. I am not saying I agree or disagree with Einstein’s thoughts about religion because I never gave them enough thought to decide but I do find certain statements of his interesting:

It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.

It’s a thought for another day, maybe never, but I wouldn’t be suprised if the type of concept about which Einstein is talking above had a lot of bearing on the psychological reasons Ayn Rand was depressed {she who was not given to depression] after the publication of her massive and monumental effort Atlas Shrugged. Much would depend on what exactly Einstein meant by “cosmic religious feeling” which if such a discussion ever took place I would examine in relation to the concept of “audience” in Ayn Rand’s case.

<i>And what exactly have you studied that leaves you unconvinced of evolution? The bible? :lol: </i>

Lol, no, I never studied the bible or any other religious text as I have always thought since I can remember all were fictional works written by various human beings and not reflective of “the word of god.” As the bible contains many acts of completely depraved violence it’s not a work I would enjoy reading in entirety, much less studying. There are parts of the bible which contain (rational and benevolent) ideas with which I agree and what’s more I can see how those particular ideas would be inspiring to many people. If one concedes that the thesis of the Golden Rule underlies a great many (but obviously not all) religious precepts, then I think one would have to agree that those particular religious precepts and Ayn Rand’s ethical philosophy were not in contradiction.

To be precise, I didn’t speak to the concept of “evolution”. I said that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is something which I have to reject based on the evidence I have at this time. Why?

Do you see or are you aware of any Cro Magnon men still around? However, are you aware of any apes still around? I’ll leave it at that.

<i>Those who deny [Aristotle’s] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Metaphysics</i>

By citing this you appear to be more of a fan of the initiation of violence than I am. I prefer a more laissez faire approach to life and do not go around suggesting it would be a good thing if anyone is burned or whipped—even in jest—even to make a point. I can think of other more benevolent suggestions to get a person to come to see and acknowledge that A=A.

I think someone in this thread :twisted: may be violating or forgetting or ignoring (i.e. denying) this very valuable axiom. :o

Who’s that? And should council be convened to vote on whether they agree with you that such a crime has taken place? Otherwise why do you bring it up in that way? Your smiley faces were not smiling but indicated displeasure and alarm. If a guilty verdict is found should the person be burned or whipped or merely instructed not to post anymore?

Finally, my main point is that although you define god in certain ways, there are many different definitions of god as I am sure you are aware. Certain Deist concepts of god would not seem to involve the rational contradictions that you believe other definitions a priori suggest.

16

Well let’s be clear here, Dr. Peikoff does not say anyone who’s not an atheist is a coward, merely that an agnostic is one. An atheist or a religious person are principled. An agnostic is simply too weak to stand by principle.

Strange that a person who lives his life and chooses his actions in relationship to others based on mysticism rather than reason should be thought of as a more heroic (less cowardly) human being than one who passes on making a judgment about something which he doesn’t feel he has enough evidence to conclude one way or the other. I’m going to venture a guess that all of the hundreds of thousands of human beings who have been and continue to be killed in the name of religion would much rather have done business with that latter.

17

Strange that a person who lives his life and chooses his actions in relationship to others based on mysticism rather than reason should be thought of as a more heroic (less cowardly) human being than one who passes on making a judgment about something which he doesn’t feel he has enough evidence to conclude one way or the other. I’m going to venture a guess that all of the hundreds of thousands of human beings who have been and continue to be killed in the name of religion would much rather have done business with that latter.

Who is better? The person who has no idea how to think and act, but nevertheless attempts rational thought and action? Or the person who renounces reason altogether and acts purely on whim?

18

Guys, let’s split off the (neverending) discussion about God into some other thread, and keep this one about agnosticism. To reiterate, an agnostic is a coward, and Dr. Peikoff was spot on in his evaluation (I hope more credit is given to him next time before dismissing his arguments).

19

Guys, let’s split off the (neverending) discussion about God into some other thread, and keep this one about agnosticism. To reiterate, an agnostic is a coward, and Dr. Peikoff was spot on in his evaluation (I hope more credit is given to him next time before dismissing his arguments).

Depending on how we choose to define agnosticism, it could well involve the discussing of the proof of God’s existence or non-existence. Peikoff defines an agnostic as one who does not dismiss claims of God’s existence out of hand due to a lack of evidence, but that seems very strange to me. I always thought an agnostic was one whose position was “show me the evidence, or I’ll dismiss the claim out of hand” - which is precisely Peikoff’s position. I understand Peikoff’s atheism to rest squarely upon the fact that the claim supporting God is without evidence and is thus arbitrary. Since everything we know about existence is everything we know about existence, a heretofore unknown cannot contradict the heretofore known, by definition. I do not yet accept David’s point that the definition of God necessarily contradicts axiomatic knowledge because that axiomatic knowledge is based upon the heretofore known and thus cannot be contradicted. Rather, claims of God must be dismissed as arbitrary unless and until evidence is brought forward. This is precisely the agnostic position as I understand it. So I would prefer to keep the discussion conjoined at least until we can demonstrate that they are, in fact, two separate topics.

20

Certain Deist concepts of god would not seem to involve the rational contradictions that you believe other definitions a priori suggest.

It’s important to define your terms. David was certainly using the common definition of God as an utterly omnipotent being; the one that is rife with contradictions, such as: could he microwave a burrito that is so hot, even he can’t eat it?

If you have some other definition to suggest, then it would have been useful if you provided it, and in much clearer terms than above, at the beginning of the thread.

Supposing you have a definition that does not contain such contradictions and can’t be dismissed on that basis. I would submit that what you describe couldn’t properly be described as the Christian God, but rather would be more akin to the Greek gods, such as Zeus.

That kind of entity has already been addressed, as it is essentially the same kind of claim as the space gremlins. That kind of claim is arbitrary, and you should brush up on what Dr. Peikoff said about the epistemological status of the arbitrary. If you disagree with what he said, you should post up your argument against that.