Questions to an agnostic

[-1-]

You might reply "I don't believe that, I know it", but belief doesn't exclude knowledge and it isn't the same as epistemically unjustified belief, as mere or blind faith.

1. "What I know, I believe."

(Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty, §177)

2. "One always forgets the expression 'I believed I knew it'."

(Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty, §12)

I hope you realize that 1. and 2. are not equivalent. Far from it.

1 says I may as well declare things as beliefs, which I know for sure they are true.

2 'I believed I knew it' means that what had been assumed earlier as knowledge, was not knowledge, but only belief, so strong a belief, that the believer had mistaken it for knowledge.

[-1-]

You might reply "I don't believe that, I know it", but belief doesn't exclude knowledge and it isn't the same as epistemically unjustified belief, as mere or blind faith.

1. "What I know, I believe."

(Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty, §177)

2. "One always forgets the expression 'I believed I knew it'."

(Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty, §12)

I hope you realize that 1. and 2. are not equivalent. Far from it.

1 says I may as well declare things as beliefs, which I know for sure they are true.

2 'I believed I knew it' means that what had been assumed earlier as knowledge, was not knowledge, but only belief, so strong a belief, that the believer had mistaken it for knowledge.

[Consul]

Belief is not knowledge. Knowledge renders belief redundant.

As you presumably know, according to the traditional conception of knowledge, it is a kind of belief: justified and true belief.
(I'm ignoring the Gettier problem here.)

Anyway, doesn't the following statement strike you as very odd: "I know that p, but I don't believe that p."

[Felix]

Thinking critical: Our subjective experiences are influenced by our own biases and predispositions, our senses can fool the mind into seeing, experiencing and believing things which aren't necessarily as they appear to be.

I wasn't speaking of sensory perception, but as I said, some of us are self aware enough to distinguish between true and delusory perceptions. Your assertion that all theists are deluded by their own mental prejudices exemplifies the tendency towards mental arrogance that I had noted in atheists.

[ThomasHobbes]

No. It is demonstrable.

So you believe that "all belief is childish and counter-intellectual," and that "belief is the height of arrogance."

I DO know that.

[Belindi]

Greta, by eternity I mean no subject/object differentiation including no Greta/not-Greta differentiation. No differentiation at all. Just a feeling of flow as that affects the mystic. I'm not entirely stepping out of line so to address you as I did once briefly experience something like that.

[Sy Borg]

Greta, by eternity I mean no subject/object differentiation including no Greta/not-Greta differentiation. No differentiation at all. Just a feeling of flow as that affects the mystic. I'm not entirely stepping out of line so to address you as I did once briefly experience something like that.

Interestingly, in my PE I still remained differentiated, perhaps determinedly so. I have felt more lost in the flow doing relatively everyday things that can bring on flow states.

How did the lack of differentiation feel?

[Mark1955]

Belief is not knowledge. Knowledge renders belief redundant.

As you presumably know, according to the traditional conception of knowledge, it is a kind of belief: justified and true belief.

Whose traditions, apart from Gettier. I'd suggest that the concept of truth is based on justification and if your justification is flawed in a way you are not aware of [and since the means of your ignorance is beyond you so is it's existence] your knowledge is just your belief. Thus to return to the agnostic position I cannot say there is or isn't a god and neither can anyone else because whatever evidence [or lack thereof] we use to prove our argument we may be unaware of evidence to the contrary.

[Belindi]

Greta, by eternity I mean no subject/object differentiation including no Greta/not-Greta differentiation. No differentiation at all. Just a feeling of flow as that affects the mystic. I'm not entirely stepping out of line so to address you as I did once briefly experience something like that.

Interestingly, in my PE I still remained differentiated, perhaps determinedly so. I have felt more lost in the flow doing relatively everyday things that can bring on flow states.

How did the lack of differentiation feel?

I felt relieved as of a burden. I was still conscious of physical facts such as my being tired, but that fact did not matter, and the world around me became a lot easier to deal with.

[Eduk]

Mark1955 you seem to be describing a general purpose philosophical position about what is knowable. In that you must be agnostic towards everything? I assume you must also be agnostic towards believing that you should be agnostic? And so on?
However in practice how agnostic are you? For example if I asked you your name would you say that technically you don't know? Or would you swallow your pride and say it was Mark? (assuming Mark is your name.
By the way. I asked how you define God because I believe there are some things worth being agnostic towards and some things which aren't. For example I am agnostic towards whether there is a purpose in the universe. Now some people would say God = purpose and therefore I am agnostic toward God, it's just that I don't define God solely in those terms.

[ThomasHobbes]

For example I am agnostic towards whether there is a purpose in the universe.

That's s bit of silly position.
Let's say I was agnostic about the existence of a civilisation of men on the moon. Would you not say I was daft?
Since there is nothing of whatever kind to indicate that "The Universe" is a thing for which it would be possible to attribute a purpose, then why on earth would you declare yourself agnostic about it?

[Eduk]

I have summed this up before (not that I expect you to have read that). I am agnostic towards purpose. But this does not mean I am 50/50. I highly suspect that the word purpose is a nonsense when applied to the universe. But I don't have enough information to be categorical. There easily could be a purpose. Where I branch into gnosticism is when someone claims to know the purpose, that is where I know that they don't.

[Mark1955]

Mark1955 you seem to be describing a general purpose philosophical position about what is knowable. In that you must be agnostic towards everything? I assume you must also be agnostic towards believing that you should be agnostic? And so on?

Yes I may be wrong the followers of The Great Green Arklesiezure may have got it all right.

However in practice how agnostic are you? For example if I asked you your name would you say that technically you don't know? Or would you swallow your pride and say it was Mark? (assuming Mark is your name).

I'm Mark1955 to you unless you want to call me something else, I have other names on other websites, I had a nickname in the army, I have a name written on my birth certificate which is usually the one use by HMG, banks etc., I'm Grandad to my family, Ref to a bunch of people I call things like No 87, I answer to 'Oi you' as required.

By the way. I asked how you define God because I believe there are some things worth being agnostic towards and some things which aren't. For example I am agnostic towards whether there is a purpose in the universe. Now some people would say God = purpose and therefore I am agnostic toward God, it's just that I don't define God solely in those terms.

I'd define god as a concept attached to a series of beliefs more or less commonly held by a group of people.

[Eduk]

I too am agnostic to 'a concept attached to a series of beliefs more or less commonly held by a group of people.'. Because that is a pretty wide category.

[Mark1955]

For example I am agnostic towards whether there is a purpose in the universe.

That's a bit of a silly position.
Let's say I was agnostic about the existence of a civilisation of men on the moon. Would you not say I was daft?
Since there is nothing of whatever kind to indicate that "The Universe" is a thing for which it would be possible to attribute a purpose, then why on earth would you declare yourself agnostic about it?

Suppose this universe is a construct of a higher species for the purpose of research into the evolution of something, then it has the purpose the constructor imbued it with. We have as much conception of this as we presume a bacteria has of the theory of general relativity because we just don't have the sensory capability. Bacteria were around long before man but we didn't know they existed until a couple of hundred years ago, viruses even less; "...heaven and earth Horatio' as some bloke wrote.