The Apastapuerist Manifesto
I am an apastapuerist. I’m currently considering my options, and may decide to be a fundamentalist apastapuerist, or perhaps a militant apastapuerist, but for the moment I can say, without doubt, that I am an apastapuerist.
The word is macaronic and derives from the Latin “a” for “without”; the Latin “pasto” for “dough”; and the Latin “puer” for “boy”.
In other words, I do not believe in the Pillsbury Dough Boy.
Now, you may think, “hell, neither do I, but I am not going to spend hundreds or thousands of hours of my life writing about it, getting together with other people who don’t believe in the Pillsbury Dough Boy, and attacking people who do happen to buy Pillsbury products”.
If that’s what you thought, then you you’re not alone. Many people see atheists in the same light. They don’t believe in god or gods or a combination or gods with goddesses. In fact, they don’t believe in goddesses, deities, Supreme Beings, or First Causes. And, if that was silly enough, they don’t believe in Zeus. Talk about negative energy.
But the difference is, they do feel the need to dwell on their disbelief.
Now why is it that I don’t (seriously) need to go around evangelizing my apastapuerism, but the atheists do feel the need to be evangelical with their atheism?
When you look at the psychology involved, and the sharp emotional energy they put into attacking people who do believe, one must come to the conclusion that atheism is a sort of psychosis or personality disorder.
Socially mature people understand and accept that people will have different perspectives, values and beliefs. A healthy mental state dictates, very simply, live and let live. One could say that that sentiment is the very foundation of peaceful society. After all, how many wars have started, how many genocides perpetrated, because one group of people disliked the beliefs of another group of people?
And yet, atheists not only recognize their intolerance, they celebrate it. They wallow in it. They beat it like a drum, and it’s not unlikely that they light bonfires to dance around while reciting their intolerance. “Faith Heads”, they scream, while prancing around naked in the light of the bonfire.
Science can neither confirm nor deny the existence of god. So why do atheists arbitrarily decide that gods do not exist?
Because, without making that arbitrary decision, one cannot begin to attack the religious. Agnostics do not make that decision. We do not arrogate ourselves to a position that bypasses both science and epistemology and every credible theory of knowledge. We accept that we do not know. And we also accept that people should be free to believe what they want to as long as they do not impinge upon the the freedoms of others.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:04 am
John, I really appreciate reading your posts here. They are very thought provoking and have a tolerant, conversational tone about them.
I have a question about Agnosticism and was hoping you could shed some light on it or at least point me in the right direction for further study. My understanding of Agnosticism’s origins is in Hume’s philosophy, that we can’t know anything in the Universe with absolute certainty. I wonder how can this philosophy be accepted since it is making an absolute claim that we can not know anything absolutely?
I don’t want to start an argument. I truly wish to understand rationally how Hume’s philosophy can be explained.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:24 am
Hi Kerrin,
Thank you for the kind comments, and for posting comments. It would be very dull here without thoughtful people commenting.
Here’s my take on things:
Humans acquire human through their perceptions of sense. I “know” I’m sitting in a chair because my butt feels it through my tactile sense, and I see the chair through my faculty of sight.
But our perceptions are not infallible. So absolute truth may exist, but humans can never be 100% certain that we are in possession of that truth, due to the unreliable nature of our sense and the human mind.
A more reasoned theory of knowledge, in my opinion, admits that we can never attain 100% certitude in our knowledge, but we can come close.
So, while I casually “know” that I am sitting in a chair, I admit that knowledge to be based on my perceptions, and as such it is not perfect knowledge.
While not perfect knowledge, it is good enough knowledge for me to not be worried about falling onto the floor.
So knowledge is removed from the realm of absolutes and placed into the realm of “degrees of certitude”.
Another issue your statement alludes to is the debate of absolute truth.
That is, if absolute truth doesn’t exist, then how can one state in absolute terms that truth doesn’t exist.
It’s a discussion that is close to the theory of knowledge but not coextensive.
If we define truth as “an attribute that attaches to a statement which represents reality as it actually exists”, then truth will indeed exist objectively, but we will not have perfect knowledge of that truth.
I hope I at least aimed my response in the general direction of your question. If I missed the mark entirely please let me know.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
it is a response to the attacks by the religious. religion is the foundation of war, social class systems, murder of others for their beliefs and practices (including human and non-human sacrafices), and any number of social ills.
granted, there is one big atheist crime against the religious, in Joseph Stalin, but look at the crimes of religion. the holocaust, the ever glorified crusades, the wars between the hebrews, and more modern examples, 9/11, the abortion clinic bombings, people have even been killed for promoting the teaching of evolution in schools.
you call me insane for being an avid atheist, but what about your belief in god? could that behavior be dubbed some sort of dementia? why yes it certainly can. when someone believes in something DESPITE overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it is delusion. has jesus ever appeared before you? probably not. try asking him to. if he fails the test then he is not real. jesus said that your prayers would be answered. not answering is just that, not answering. if god were real (s)he would answer. (s)he is all powerful, isn’t (s)he? or is (s)he unable to answer you. i see no reason for him/her not to if your faith is on the line. or does (s)he not want you to believe? does my sexual ambiguity of the creator/savior god of yours disturb you?
December 20th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Actually, it isn’t. A lot of wars have been fought over non-religious conflicts. Imperialism is often the foundation of war.
Being raised in Japan as I was, the very concept of war being in any way related to religion sounds a bit absurd. War has traditionally been over territory and resources, and in no way related to religion.
Did you miss the part where I stated I was agnostic?
What overwhelming evidence is this?
Supporting logic please.
Why would it?
December 21st, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Wow, you have lived in Japan too damn long! What a ridiculous, and just jaw-droppingly ignorant post. Never in my life have a seen one individual so completely ass backwards, and oblivious to the world around them. The bizarro world you’re living in where the religionist majority are the polite, tolerant persecuted people who are all about “faith, love and hope”, while the tiny minority of atheists are the big bad evil doers, is just an absolute joke. Why? Because a few atheist authors had the GALL to step up to big daddy religion and criticize what one doesn’t dare criticize? The VERY thing that bombards atheists’ lives on a daily basis? Seriously, your bizarro world is pathetic. As if there’s no legit reason for atheists to “dwell in their disbelief”. Actually, I don’t think you’re oblivious at all, I just think your own bigotry of atheists, which shines quite bright on this blog, allows you to wilfully ignore the amount of shit they take CONSTANTLY from the oh so polite and tolerant theists.
“But the difference is, they do feel the need to dwell on their disbelief.
Now why is it that I don’t (seriously) need to go around evangelizing my apastapuerism, but the atheists do feel the need to be evangelical with their atheism?”
Gee, John, perhaps when Pastapuerists become the dominant religion in our culture, to the point where it actually impacts and intrudes on all of our lives on a daily basis, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”.
- Perhaps when Pastapuerists begin to obstruct scientific progress, the rights of women, homosexuals, minority non-dough based religions, apastapuerists, the constant revising of our history, shoving their doughy myths in our science classes, the complete domination of our government, our courts, schools, highways, currency, mottos, patriotic ceremonies… and when they start flying dough based airliners into our skyscrapers, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”.
- Perhaps when apastapuerists pay their taxes, only to be discriminated against in the federally funded Pastapuerist Scouts, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”.
- Perhaps when the Pastapuerist Scouts Chairman justifies discriminating against apastapuerist scouts by saying “If an apastapuerist found a wallet on the ground, he or she would pick it up, plunder the money, and throw the wallet back down.”, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”.
- Perhaps when the Pastapuerist president says: No, I don’t know that apastapuerists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under The Pillsbury Doughboy”, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwellon their disbelief”.
- Perhaps when Pastapuerists regularly discriminate against apastapuerists in child custody and adoption cases, without a single dough drop of coverage by the Pastapuerist dominated media, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”.
- Perhaps when our apastapuerists soldiers become regularly discriminated in our Pastapuerist dominated Military, only to return home — after putting their apastapuerist asses on the line — to have their service denigrated by the Pastapuerist dominated media, politicians and military, by claiming there are no “apastapuerists in fox holes”, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”. And of course you may just encounter a few more apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief” when they’re discriminated against in the doughy equivalent of the American Legion and VFW.
- Perhaps when Pastapuerist Churches receive tax free status, while apastapuerist tax dollars go towards discrimination of other apastapuerists, thanks to unconstitutional, Pastapuerist dominated government programs, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”.
- Perhaps when dictionaries begin defining apastapuerism in Pastapuerist biased dictionaries as “Wickedness” and “Immorality”, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”.
- Perhaps when Pastapuerists take control and make it nearly impossible for apastapuerists to freely come out of the closet in Pastapuerist dominated southern areas without the risk of losing their jobs, friendships, relationships, family members, businesses, town council positions, and being ridiculed at school by both students AND teachers, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”.
- Perhaps when an immoral apastapuerist wants to get liquored up on a Sunday after eating Pastapuerist babies, and wants to put some miles on that new, shiny big ol’ purple drilldo, but won’t be able to because of Pastapuerist enforced laws, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”.
- Perhaps when Pastapuerist dominated talk shows run by Pastapuerist owned corporations who only put on Pastapuerist guests who spew nothing but hate, bigotry and intolerance, without a single apastapuerist present to defend themselves, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”.
- Perhaps when every damn politician becomes a Pastapuerist, and due to their doughy spines, they completely and effortlessly bend over backwards to kiss the doughy asses of every other Pastapuerist, while completely throwing apastapuerists under the dough filled bus, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”.
- Perhaps when the airwaves become dominated by 8 billion different Pastapuerist stations, and literally ONE apastapuerist station comes along, and the Pastapuerists completely lose their heads, while literally melting into a pile of dough over it, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”.
- Perhaps when Pastapuerists begin to CONSTANTLY scapegoat apastapuerists, by telling them that their lack of morals are responsible for the downfall of the society that’s founded on Pastapuerist principles, and are responsible for every damn school/rampage shooting, despite the fact that it will ALWAYS be done by a Pastapuerist, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”.
- Perhaps when Pastapuerists prevent apastapuerists from testifying in the court of law and holding public office by actually putting it in state constitutions, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”.
- Perhaps when polls repeatedly show that apastapuerists are the most despised minority, and the last group Pastapuerists parents want their Pastapuerist children to marry, and are the most consumer obsessed, all for simply lacking a belief in the Pillsbury Doughboy, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”. You may even encounter a few apastapuerists who dare form like minded communties to interact with each other, and to, you know, protect trivial things such as their FRIGGIN’ CIVIL RIGHTS!
- And finally, perhaps when Chuck fuckin’ Norris becomes a Pastapuerist, completely betraying our childhoods, by claiming that he’d like to tattoo “In The Pillsbury Doughboy We Trust” on the forehead of every apastapuerist, and place his holy book of dough in every classroom, you may just encounter a few apastapuerists who dare “dwell on their disbelief”.
But don’t worry, John, when the Pastapuerists do become the dominant religion, to the point where their egos think their oh so precious doughy religion is immune to any sort of criticism, and they begin to form unbelievably pathetic persecution complexes, you can kick the apastapuerists into your little bizarro world by accusing them of being just as intolerant for not tolerating the Pastapuerists’ intolerance. You can accuse them of, how did you say it, “celebrating and wallowing” their intolerance. And of course you can accuse them of being dogmatists and fundamentalists for simply criticizing the opposing side’s dogmatism and fundamentalism. And when the Pastapuerists bombard apastapuerists with their infantile nonsense, you can accuse the apastapuerists of being just as infantile for simply having the dough filled sack to call them on it. And then you can pretend not to laugh when the Pastapuerists quickly redefine their beliefs, because the apastapuerist just owned their off-white, doughy asses.
And of course when they do bombard us with their extraordinary claims, supply absolutely ZERO evidence to support them, you, your fellow holier than thou agnostics, and your buddies, the persecuted majority of Pastapuerists, can unfairly assign us a religion, a dosage of faith, a belief system, arrogance, dogmatism, fundamentalism, and of course, you can shift the default position to their side, while shifting the burden of proof onto ours. And while you’re at it, you can dishonestly claim that any apastapuerist dictator of yesteryear commited atrocities in the name of apastapuerism, despite the lack of apastapuerist text, doctrine, ideology etc. ‘Cause, damn it! It just isn’t fair that Pastapuerists should have all that blood on their hands. Let’s dishonestly spread that blood around!
And yes, John, relax… When the Pastapuerists do dominate, you can still sit up there on your imaginary moral highground, looking down on the little (doughy) people with your smug, arrogant, holier than thou, annoyingly selective, hypocritical, intellectually dishonest, know it all, militant position of agnosticism. No worries there! You are, and will always be the bigger man with the most “intellectual integrity”.
P.S. Perhaps when the Pastapuerists do take over, the apastapuerists may just have the gall to defy second class status, by asking for equal time during the holidays, and place a sign on government property. A sign made by a group of decent people who simply prefer to imagine none of the bigoted nonsense above. How dare they!
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:47 am
In the world I live in, and judging from your IP the world you live in, the majority are not particularly religionist. The majority of folks are indeed polite. Atheists for the most part are polite. Christians for the most part are polite. The Muslims I know in America are extremely polite. No group is systematically persecuted, although every group seems eager to lay claim to victimhood.
You must be entirely unaware of the great classics of Western thought. Criticism of religion is not a new fangled invention of Richard Dawkins. Lucretius was criticizing religion over 2000 years ago, as did pretty much every philosopher since.
They just did it with more class than Dawkins, and more academic insight.
Being a bit histrionic there, aren’t you?
My bigotry is against intellectual dishonesty and against those who would impinge upon the freedom of others. When atheists try to legislate their intolerance, they get on my shitlist. When they try to pass off the opinion that gods don’t exist as fact, they get on my shitlist. When religious people try to legislate their morality, they get on my shitlist. If they try to pass off their belief in god as a scientific fact, they get on my shitlist.
You are committed to playing the victim, but the violence within you as demonstrated by your words makes me wonder. You are seething with hatred of religious people, and do you seriously expect people to believe that you would respect the rights of religious people to believe what they want?
Here you have what would appear to be a legitimate complaint. Specifically, the American impingement upon the rights of gay folk to marry.
But you assign blame for this to religion. Religion doesn’t magically remove free will. The blame for intolerance, if we are to be intellectually honest, must be placed at the feet of intolerance itself.
Take Dawkins for example. He is an intolerant old bigot. He supports radical legislation that can only be characterized as intolerant.
Should we blame atheism for that intolerance? If 100% of atheists were intolerant, I might do that. But Bertrand Russell was an atheist, and he was also a very tolerant person.
So it seems obvious to me that, while you have religion in your cross hairs, it’s actually intolerance that you ought to be taking aim at. But judging from your violent language, I would venture a guess that you support the intolerance of Dawkins. And that just discredits atheism, and gives the religious extremists fuel for their intolerance.
An intellectually honest person might wonder why any sign or symbol that regards religion should be placed on government property, instead of asking for the right to place also a sign that attacks religion.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Wow I guess we shouldn’t attack people who are racist or facist or communist. It is wrong to spend our time fighting against an insanity which will attempt to deprieve us of our liberties and kill us if we disagree.
Next up: why blacks should not get angry when the KKK says they are inferior and should be deported. It is wrong for black people to celebrate intolerance towards the KKK, because science can neither confirm nor deny they are inferior to white people.
Yes, I’m being sarcastic. I appologize to black people for my standard tactic of checking for garbage by asking if 1)black people would fit the criteria and 2) exactly how racist does it sound (Extremely racist). It works great when talking about homosexuality.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:40 am
Correct, you shouldn’t attack anybody. Attack their principles, in the form of intellectually honest debate, but don’t attack people.
Of course we should fight insanity, such as the petitions supported by Dawkins which attempt to legislate atheism and criminalize religious belief. Freedom is foundation of peaceful society.
Funny guy.
When my son was 5 years old, he discovered the rhetorical power of false dichotomies. Once when I told him he couldn’t have M&M’s for breakfast, he cried out, “So I can’t have anything to eat for as long as I live and you want me to starve to death?!”
False dichotomies are cute coming from five year olds. But you aren’t five years old, are you?
Nobody said that atheists cannot be angry, hateful people. Nobody said they cannot celebrate that hatefulness. I did however say that you are crossing a line when you attempt to legislate your atheism and criminalize religious belief.
December 27th, 2007 at 3:46 am
The brain; your most important organ. Without it, you aren’t much.
Anyway I find Scott’s post “funny”. The same way I find Televangalists funny. He says I shouldn’t go out and attack people. Thanks by the way, I didn’t realize manslaught way illegal. It is so nice of you to point it out.
By the way I like your “freedom is the foundation of a peaceful society”. In the country I live in police and the military are the foundation of a peaceful society. Freedom is the foundation of an open society. I like your “petitions are insanity” line. Given the fact that they don’t criminalize religious beliefs and simply ask for the end of government suported faith schools, I can only assume your pulling it out of your ass.
Finally you say it’s a false dichotomy to compare KKK to blacks to religion and atheism because….
Fine I will support my analogy. As seen from the Bell Curve if you massage statistics enough you can get answers showing blacks are dangerous criminals. And if you believe anyone who doesn’t share your faith is going to burn in Hell, then atheists are a threat because they induce doubt.
I didn’t say atheists are better then theists. I do know however that no atheist will ever kill me in the name of atheism.
Finally there is the hate part. I just use the rhetoric because it is fun to write this way. I don’t hate theists; I think they are insane. As such I want them to realize that and become sane, because otherwise they are a threat to me. It may sound arrogant to call 5.4 billion people nuts, but after taking a look at the arguements on the internet, I realized that the theists are wrong. So I attempt to get them to realize that. It makes the world safer for me and those I care about. And isn’t intelligent self interest what Individual Sovernity all about?
December 27th, 2007 at 4:13 am
Actually, if you bothered to read the petitions, you’d find it to say:
Dawkins has stated he wants it to be illegal to share religious beliefs with children under the age of 16.
Always best to do your homework before posting.
No, theists are not the threat. Intolerance is the threat. Some religious people are intolerant and they want to force their beliefs on others. Some atheists - seems most of them - are intolerant and want to force atheism on people using the power of the government.
Intolerance is the threat, and you appear to stand in support of not just criminalizing religious belief, but also criminalizing the very concept of non-atheist thought.
A lot of things could make the world safer. We could put everybody in their own padded cells, feed them a super diet, force them to exercise, and we’d have a perfectly safe world. One devoid of personal sovereignty and freedom.
And individual liberty is what Individual Sovereignty is all about.
December 27th, 2007 at 4:51 am
John, Thanks for sharing your prospective. Yes it did answer my question. I want to think some more about your answer because it is begging more questions.
If you are ever in the D.C. metro area of the US, shoot me an email. I’d love to buy you a beer and talk.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Kerrin,
Thank you for your kind comments, and I sincerely appreciate your commenting here.
I doubt I’ll ever be in the United States again. I kind of, um, don’t like the way things are there. The government scares me.
We can do Europe or Asia, though.
December 28th, 2007 at 3:22 am
Wow, you say alot of silly things.
First how is brainwashing by the government wrong, but okay if parents do it? But wait he isn’t asking for the government to brainwash, he is simply saying that parents shouldn’t have the right to do it. It is sort of like how abolition violates property rights. Well yes it does involve the government deprieving people of rights; however what is being taken is given to other people. In my country the government frowns upon cults aka aggressive new religions. It is legal for people to deprogram former cultists because they are regarded a such a threat. I’m surprised you hold contrary views- didn’t you have fanatics gas the subways in Japan?
Once again intolerance isn’t the main threat. I for one am very intolerant of certain things. I am not a threat though; even if everyone thought like me there wouldn’t be killing; ridicule yes, but slaughter no. For example I think hardline agnostics are idiots. Will I kill them? No, I simply mock them mercilessly. The problem is when people’s beliefs lead inexorably to violence. That is what I am intolerant of. That, stupidity and hypocricy.
I keep on getting this “doesn’t your logic require” (putting people in padded rooms, controling diets). It is a common misconception caused by not looking at the big picture. Trying to achieve that goal of padded cells will result in violence and make the world less safe. So I would do it if it work. Well if it worked we wouldn’t have the inherent revulsion to it, because you see there are reasons behind emotions and instincts (not always correct, but definately useful).
December 29th, 2007 at 5:21 am
John,
I’m with you on the scary government here… I just have to many people I care about here to leave.
Perhaps someday I’ll make it to Asia, Japan would be great. Or I may return to my homeland, Scotland… who knows.
Are there any books you recommend written from the strong-agnostic prospective?
Cheers!
December 29th, 2007 at 5:44 am
Samuel,
Speaking of silly things to say:
Who was talking about brainwashing?
Sounds like more straw man silly talk from an intolerant atheist.
In the first paragraph of your last comment you equate a parent sharing/teaching their child religion(s) with slavery, cults and terrorism. I might take you seriously if your arguments were based in some rational form.
Keep up the silly talk. It makes me laugh.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Huxley was considered a leading agnostic.
Also, Stephen Jay Gould. He was an evolutionary biologist, and in his book “Rocks of Ages” he put forth a theory called “NOMA” (Non-Overlapping Magisteria).
The NOMA logic goes thus:
P1. The God Hypothesis is a Supernatural Hypothesis.
P2. Science deals exclusively with nature and the physical realm.
C. Therefore science cannot determine the existence of god or gods.
Dawkins attempts to get around this logic by assuming that non-physical gods must have exerted an influence on the physical realm, and that effects of that should be subject to physical examination. In typical Dawkins fashion, he assumes a point not granted.
December 29th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Cute attempt to frame an argument, but it fails on the accepted definition of brainwashing. (See the OED.)
Correct, he asks for sharing of religion with one’s own children to be criminalized.
Namely, to Dawkins. And the analogy is a bit stretched, eh?
Japanese, ever the practical and common sense people, rightly hold terrorist acts to be illegal, whether they are done for religious reasons or not. They wouldn’t think of telling people what they can and cannot believe. It’s considered extremely rude.
Then you are tolerant. Intolerance, in political context, is being intolerant of an attribute to the point that you do not tolerate it. When you ridicule something, you are in fact tolerating it. When you attempt to make laws to criminalize it, that is intolerant. When you blow people up, that also is intolerant.
A friendly word of advice to assist you in your mocking. When you call somebody an “idiot”, it is often seen as intellectual poverty. The reason is, if you had logical argument, you would no doubt use it, insofar as logic is a thousand times more powerful than name calling. So, in your mocking, always open with solid reasoning, citation of facts, and do indisputable logic. It will get you a lot further than mere mocking.
First you would need to establish what right you have to put others in padded cells. Or make them eat healthy foods. Or do anything that your subjective morality tells you is “right”.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
John,
Thanks for those suggestions. I like how the NOMA and strong-agnostic logic then frames all discussions of the supernatural in terms of belief. But how would you challenge someone who says “I choose not to believe”?
To me the chose to “not believe” seems illogical and is actually choosing to believe there is no chose. Therefore contradicting itself.
Is this conclusion true?: Anytime we choose not to believe something there is a logical, emotional, or scientific reason to not believe it. We are then believing that the logical, emotional, or scientific reason is true and the thing we were presented with is not true.
Thanks for your help.
January 5th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
John, I think I may need to clarify my previous comment. It might help you see where I coming from.
What I am getting at is causality. Logically I agree that we can’t know with certainty anything about the metaphysical so then anything we accept about the metaphysical is a belief.
It seems one must reject causality, which is logical hard to do, or believe that there is a particular cause (whatever they want to believe that cause is).
here is my logic:
X = a cause
P1: There is X
P2: We can’t prove or verify X
P3: Anything that can not be proven or verified is a belief
C: Therefore X is a belief.
If someone excepts causality but says: “I don’t believe in a particular cause”.
The conclusions would be: Therefore “I don’t believe in a particular cause” is a belief. The person who would say they “don’t believe” is usually a person who claims to not have beliefs, but rely on Logic and Science where things can be verified not believed.
Am I wrong? Can you help me see where I am wrong? Am I misunderstanding causality?
Thanks.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Indeed. Agnosticism is not lack of belief; it is a proposition in itself.
Agnosticism is not denying causality; it simply denies our knowledge of it.
Indeed, there either is a god or isn’t. But we do not know, or at least I don’t, whether god or gods exist.
January 12th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Cool. Thanks. I think I have always been a strong-agnostic I just didn’t know it…. or didn’t know how to articulate it.
January 13th, 2008 at 3:49 am
Can you be my go to guy for all things agnostic? I have another question oh wise one.
Can you logical describe a metaphysical thing, object, or being and call it a logical belief? Or would the whole thing just be called a belief not a logical belief?
If this is possible can you use a premise that is also a belief in your logical description?
These are probably silly musings I just thought I’d ask.
January 13th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Hi Kerrin,
Metaphysical objects can be described logically, but it’s just a theoretical exercise. Belief in the metaphysical is not illogical in and of itself; if you attempt to move that belief to the category of “know” and label it “truth”, you’ll have problems, IMO.
So I can believe that I have a soul. I can describe that soul in metaphysical terms without contradicting logic. But if I say I know that I have a soul, I’ll run into problems with the definition of “know”, and if I say that the truth is that I have a soul, again I’d expect to run into problems, unless I adhere to a wholly subjectivist definition of truth (e.g., “what I believe to be the truth is then the truth”).
May 7th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
John,
How does your theory of knowledge differ from the typical definition of knowledge as a justified true belief? And how would you apply the typical definition to the metaphysical? If you can describe a soul in metaphysical terms without contradicting logic don’t you then have some good reasons for your belief (i.e. it is epistemically justified)?