2+2=5: A Case for Agnostic-Atheism

Justified True Belief refers to what you can classify as knowledge. For "P" to consider "X" to be knowledge "P" has to satisfy 3 conditions

1) X is true
2) P believes X is true
3) P is justified in his belief that X is true
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/29347-2-2-5-case-agnostic-atheism.html

But if your familiar with the "Gettier Problem" even the JTB definition of knowledge is insuffecient. Its usually the "justification of the belief" that is at fault in a gettier problem. If your unfamiliar with the Gettier Problem, id be willing to explain but I'll assume that if you know wat JTB is then you most likely know wat the gettier problem is (although i didnt no about the gettier problem myself until recently :P).

Perhaps this is epistamalogical gridlock then. Yes, there are rationalist's out there like you and there are empiricist's out there like me, but we both cant be right at the same time and neither of us will budge in either case. But the empiricist world view lead to this computer I'm typing on (amongs other things ). You know, even Descartes own views held him back from making break throughs that Newton would later achieve (although he would deny them because he was also madly religious and going crazy due to mercury posioning from alchemy experiments). I forget if it was you who mentioned Zeno's paradox (in a earlier post) but Newton's calculas and concept of the limit lead to solving the paradox—although he, himself, denied it outright because it conflicted with his world view just like Descartes, himself, denied some of the idea's that lead to this breakthrough. Rationalism (or wat u call internalism) has a history of stifling progress. Modern science is entirely empiricist. But ight, if this is a matter of epistomalogical gridlock, so be it. However my original argument is entirely in Formal Logic (the same system of logic used in the Gettier Problem to show the insuffeciency of JTB) so my original argument still stands regardless of epistimology. (Afterall, the logic behind the Gettier Problem is as much a problem for a rationilist as it is for a Empiricist; Similarily, the logic behind my argument is a problem for certain religious people [has nothing to do with rationalist/empiricist althought i must say, religious people tend to be reationalists]. I'm saying that cuz most refuse to achnowledge a problem.). Atleast we agree that God would have to be logical though .

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

Sinister Ji, interesting take on emotion, a few posts back.

WOW! you study cognitive science and then you say modern science is entirely empiricist? I guess einstein was wasting his time with his thought experiments.

Sometimes I think you actually have grasped something but then you say something really really absurd...which raises doubt about your understanding of philosophy.

care to explain how internalism stifles progress in a coherent manner?

internalism is the belief that all knowledge resides within the mind (doesnt exclude sensory input) and externalism is the belief that all knowledge resides outside the mind.

no belief whatsoever at any point hinders the process of attainment of knowledge.

"Externalism in the historiography of science is the view that the history of science is due to its social context - the socio-political climate and the surrounding economy determines scientific progress.

Internalism in the historiography of science claims that science is completely distinct from social influences and pure natural science can exist in any society and time given the intellectual capacity."

Okayy.... well this might be my fault. I assumed when you meant "externalism" and "interanalism" you were equation that to empiricism and rationalism (even i mix empiricism with rationalism (they both have strengths and weaknesses) [mixing the two is called pragmatism i think].) My bad, false assumption.

But im essentially going by this wikipedia description of Externalism

"Externalism is a group of positions in the which hold that the mind is not only the results of what is going on inside the (or the ) but also of what either occur or exist outside the subject. It is often contrasted with which holds that the mind emerges out of neural activity alone. Externalism articulates the hunch that the mind is not just the brain or what the brain does."

Your description of externalism doesnt sound anything like it? Particularily when you say.

Because u leave urself the option of including external sensory input but you dont leave the externalists with a similar option of including internal process. Having said that, the wikipedia definition simply says "the mind is not only the result of what is going on inside." it doesnt take the extreme position of "all knowledge resides outside the mind" if that was the case i wouldnt call myself an externalisit.... i realize that truth resides outside the mind but beliefs (if they can be considered knowledge) reside completely within the mind. So again, im a bit of a pragmatist?

Apologize for the false assumption. Hopefully we can get this discussion back on track (i still think all of modern science is empiricist. But with regards to externalist and internalist—i'd say im both. Im part rationalist as well, you kind of have to be when debating about religion especially. But wen we were talkin about ethic's, moral's and the like, i take an empiricist stance.

So summarizing here.

Logic = rationalist stance
Ethics, morals = empiricist stance
And im equal parts externalist and internalist. Knowledge resides both inside and outside the mind for me

my definition is better because it is simpler to understand.. and if you read it again it is exactly what I have said...I have studied this philosophy for years

what about internal sensory input? (brain in a vat?)
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

absurd but just as true...and it does not hinder the attainment of knowledge in any way shape or form.

that is if you can still call it knowledge "DUN DUN DAAAAAA!"

so lets get this straight

you have come around and changed your position and are now
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

an internalist and an externalist

you are both a rationalist and an empiricist

you believe that ethics and all morals are learned ENTIRELY through experience? (which is clearly debatable)

and you believe that logic is attainable only through rationalism. (which is also debatable)

wow you are pretty illogical and pointless

Goodnight!

I havent changed my position. I clarified it. It was my fault though and I apologized for making that original assumption.

I would say I'm a moderate externalisit. Yup yup. I'm not going to hold the position that "all knowledge is outside the brain" but if were talking about truth then yes im completely externalist. The reason i mentioned both is because you intertwine truth with belief and for reasons I have stated (like the falsity of belief) I dont think you can do that. Beliefs reside inside the mind but the "truth is out there" (dun dun dun dun dun *xfiles theme* )

And LOL @ any brain in the vat position. I guess you must have really enjoyed the Matrix?

Strictly speaking, im an empiricist. To be scientific demands empiricism. And i think ethics and morals all have evolutionary roots (there is nothing a-priori about them—they are not inately true so they are best understood through empirical methods). Logic on the otherhand (like math) can be "a-priori" or inately true and if religion contends to have some a-priori truths, then i'll debate with a rationalisit approach. Its not illogical and pointless, its a valid position (although your use of ad-hominid attack is pretty illogical and pointless in and of itself :P but all is far in fun and games, wouldnt it be awesome if we really were brain in vats? :P). The position itself is called Pragmatism as I have said before.

Um sorry, but no. What you are positing is not pragmatism as much as it is cognitive disonance. Because pragmatism involves denial of fact-value distinction (and here you are doing the complete opposite) and not to mention pragmatism involves practicality. In no way can believing in both internalism and externalism lead to any practical outcomes!(do not confuse these with rational and empirical)

According to logic you cannot both believe in both externalism and internalism. What you can say logically and pragmatically is, “I do not know whether the existence of truth requires belief” (it is what a pragmatic person would say) but to be both sides of such a dichotomy is not pragmatism it's just cognitive dissonance…lunacy and it is illogical.

And that is a case for Agnosticism

None of this 2+2 business makes much sense

Im gonna take you back to the Socratic roots of logic: the only thing I know is that I know nothing at all.

And no finer words have been spoken for the Agnostic.

you are not an agnostic if you do not honestly believe this...and neither are you an atheist

let me tell you about my understanding of sikhism (cause for some odd reason you clearly wish to avoid the sikh concept of god...even after the respective member Tejwant Singh numerously told you to analyze the mool mantar):
to be agnostic is to be uncertain about the existance of god (in sikhism god is equated to truth). so for a sikh an agnostic is someone who is uncertain about the truth. and logically to be an atheist would be to deny the truth (equivalent to some sort of neitzschean nihilism or even 'brain in a vat').

to be a true agnostic means 'no certainty', which means, you cannot be certain of the uncertainty of truth but you must be uncertain about the uncertainty of truth (ad infinitum).

now,
you do not deny the existence of truth, according to your replies 2+2 does indeed =4....but neither do you seem to be uncertain of the truth you seem certain about the 2+2=4 (judging from your posts)...

so in effect you are neither an atheist nor an agnostic...nor an atheist-agnostic but just another sikh because you believe in existence of truth...
and because God=truth
you also believe in god

welcome to club!

I am confused as to how God = truth.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29347

Truth = a verified or indisputable fact
God =/= a verified or indisputable fact


PS I was thought Satnam meant God's name is true..