There is a reason that I do not call myself an agnostic

Post #133,885 by ben_tilly 1/6/04 2:12:44 PM Reply	There is a reason that I do not call myself an agnostic By the technical definitions I am both an atheist and an agnostic. However most people don't understand the technical definitions, and get a more accurate impression of my views if I describe myself as an atheist. Obviously my views don't change depending on which label I choose, they are what they are. However people fail to understand that it is perfectly reasonable to both be certain that there is no absolute way to prove or disprove God's existence, but I find myself with an utter lack of belief in God. Therefore I feel that it is somewhat dishonest to describe myself as an agnostic when I'm sure that I'll be misunderstood to be waffling on the question of God's (non)existence. Conversely it irritates me to see fundamentalist Christians who publically claim to be agnostics simply because they think that that is a better position to argue from. Be accurate, even when it is inconvenient for you. Now to the response that you gave of the Anthropic Principle. It misses exactly what [link\|http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=5r9e9a%24tq2%241%40dartvax.dartmouth.edu&rnum=2\|my post] said is often missed. When factoring in the results of an observation, how surprised we are at the thing observed is irrelevant to any conclusions. What matters in drawing conclusions are ratios of probabilities. Quoting from my article: First of all only half of the argument that needs to be presented has been attempted here. The side that has been totally ignored is how likely it is a priori that there is a designer, who is interested in creating intelligent life, who would actually do it by designing a universe like this, and who is capable of doing it. Given that the person presenting the argument believes that there is such a designer (indeed the individual often believes that they know what the designer is like) this oversight is understandable. However from the point of view of an atheist (such as myself) this is a major flaw since, to me, the assumption of an intelligent God capable of creating the universe, is a more unlikely thing (a priori) than the observed universe... So no, the interpretation of the Anthropic Principle is far from being as simple as many would have it. But neither is it as trivially rejected as your article would have it. Furthermore the effect of the Anthropic Principle, fully analyzed, is to cause any person who is already convinced to become further convinced of their original position. It therefore is a great way to sound convincing to your own ears while completely missing the other person. Which is an important point that you don't often hear from anyone. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #133,895 by danreck 1/6/04 3:18:37 PM 1/6/04 4:28:08 PM Reply	Thanks for the clarification I am keeping my options open, however. I do respect your honesty and conviction. There is still room for a Christian God in my Agnosticism, however improbable. To clarify my personal position, this is not a social convenience for me to mask atheism. I truly believe that it is impossible to determine the nature of our existance given all of our limitations (scope, observation, reproduceability (sp?), et al.) I do not believe it is a waste of time to ponder or even debate (obviously), but I doubt that there will ever be a satisfactory conclusion, so most times, I choose not to debate. I am fascinated by the work of science. I make my living on computers. I read Scientific American, POPSCI, and POPMech for pleasure. I am almost giddy that we are on Mars finding out some damned real answers. I am absolutely amazed by the genius of the technology that put us there. I am definately not anti-science or progress. I am just a die hard skeptic. It seems wise to remember things like the Titanic et al when humankind starts feeling cocky. Certain events in my life have made me think that our five senses aren't enough to comprehend the scope of even this planet. Shit, look at B.F. Skinner. All he set out to do was to insist on scientific method in Psychology. He spent most of the rest of his life trying to distance himself, one huge mea culpa (one he didn't need to make). I view all of modern science as I view Skinner. If you try to limit your scope only to what is measurable, quantifiable and reproduceable you may be able to predict certain behaviors but it, in no way, gives any understanding of the complexity of conciousness nor how it came into being. Nor it's true purpose or potential. Etc. Right now, as we reverse engineer the human genome, we may be able to reproduce some aspects, but we are not the originators nor do we have much understanding of why or how. We are the Microsoft Engineers in this equation. :-O My fear is that we will duplicate MS's work with similar results. The world needs true agnostics (or skeptics or philosophers) to keep the rest of the world in line. YMMV. Just a few thoughts, Danno Edited by danreck Jan. 6, 2004, 04:28:08 PM EST Expand All History
Post #134,030 by Ashton 1/7/04 5:22:07 AM Reply	What a Horrifying thought! Human genome 'interpretation' via Microsoft 'science-light' !! (on a par with 'Christianity' by Ashcroft?) {ugly} {ugly} Sadist!

Welcome to IWETHEY!