Peikoff and Agnosticism

[Dragonfly]

Nick, can you agree with the statement: "Zeus does not exist", or are you an agnostic in that regard?

[NickOtani]

Nick, can you agree with the statement: "Zeus does not exist", or are you an agnostic in that regard?

Zeus does exist as a concept, as does the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. They fall into the category of mythological entities. I don't believe they exist in objective reality. And, it is the burden of someone who thinks they do exist in objectve reality to prove it.

If something truely doesn't exist, even as a concept, it can have no referent. The statement "X doesn't exist," is either false or incoherent.

Most of the entities which are refered to as God are either contradictory concepts or mythological concepts, but someone could be refering to the laws of nature or reality itself, as was Spinoza. I don't think it is wise to say anything which can be refered to as God does or does not exist before we know how God is being defined, just as I don't think we ought to say someone's car is not blue before we know if that person even has a car.

bis bald,

Nick

[Dragonfly]

Zeus does exist as a concept, as does the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

Well, that's trivial of course. In the same sense "nothing" does exist as a concept.

The statement "X doesn't exist," is either false or incoherent.

There's nothing false or incoherent in thet statement "fairies don't exist"; it's obvious that this means that they don't exist as physical entities and not that there isn't a concept "fairy".

I don't think it is wise to say anything which can be refered to as God does or does not exist before we know how God is being defined, just as I don't think we ought to say someone's car is not blue before we know if that person even has a car.

I don't think this is really necessary. It's rather obvious that the statements "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" refer to a discussion about a personal God, an intelligent actor who created the universe and who can and does intervene in the lives of people, for example by answering prayers (the details may vary, but are not relevant here) and not about some vague general concept that is more or less a synonym for "nature".

[NickOtani]

Dragonfly, it’s important for philosophers to be precise. Recognizing subtle distinctions can uncover issues which would otherwise be overlooked. An automobile mechanic, when looking under the hood of an automobile, sees a carburetor, an engine block, cylinder coverings, sparkplug cables, and a variety of things non-mechanics lump together as, “The motor.” A bicycle repair person, when looking at a bicycle, will see sprockets, chain links, gear cables, spokes, and a variety of things most people lump together as “The bicycle.” When a carpenter sees a building, he or she will see struts, frames, support beams, and a variety of things most people don’t specifically notice. We also know that doctors, lawyers, and insurance adjustors all have their specialized jargon which those of us not in the profession have a hard time understanding. However, there is a reason for this. The mechanic is more precise when referring to a carburetor as a carburetor rather than a doohickey or thingamajig. There is a reason why philosophers separate things into rational and empirical, a priori and a posteriori, analytic and synthetic, objective and subjective, idealistic, realistic, pragmatic, and existentialistic.

A philosopher who specializes in the debate on theism and atheism may see distinctions in definitions of atheist and theist and agnostic. He or she can learn more about this interest if he or she distinguishes between knowledge and belief, between weak and strong atheists, between who does and who does not have the burden of proof, and between existing as a concept and as a natural or supernatural entity. Someone who doesn’t know or care about this stuff can just say, “Oh those agnostics are all cowards. They just want to straddle the fence make us atheists prove a negative,” or “Oh, it’s not necessary to distinguish between existence in physical reality and existence as a concept. Nothing can be gained from a discussion of “nothingness” or negative existentials.” They can say this, but it is pretty careless, irresponsible, and unproductive, even counter productive to those who really love the love of wisdom.

bis bald,

Nick

[Dragonfly]

Nick, I'm all for precision in an argument, but it must be useful. After all it was me who made for example a distinction between existence of a concept as a concept and the existence of a concept as something that refers to something that does exist in the real world. The first is trivial and should be ignored, as it doesn't contribute anything to the discussion and can only cause confusion. For example "contradiction" does exist as a concept, but should we therefore conclude that a contradiction can exist?

That's also the reason that I wanted to make explicit what in general is meant by the statement "God doesn't exist" of the atheist. It's obvious that here "God" is not meant as a synonym for "nature", as no atheist would deny that nature does exist, a discussion about that would be rather pointless. I therefore tried to make it more precise by defining "God" as some supernatural intelligent being that created the world and can and does intervene in the life of people. That still leaves room for thousands of different interpretations of "God", but it isn't necessary to specify them further, as the details are not relevant to the atheist, who only states that such a being doesn't exist, no matter the details, as long as the notion of "God" somehow fits into the definition I've given. In contrast, a "God" who has no effect at all on the world is hardly a notion worth discussing, and extending the notion of "God" to such vague notions to be "exact" only muddies the waters.

[NickOtani]

Yes, I said, back in my initial post in this thread, I think 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. 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.

Why do you still have a problem with this? A weak atheist rejects a belief in the God you are describing. He or she is not considering the possibility of His existence, as Peikoff claims he or she is. He or she is simply not claiming omniscience? Isn’t that a good thing?

It was Socrates’ point that knowing that one doesn’t know something puts one closer to the truth than thinking one knows it when one really doesn’t.

Besides, talking about “nothingness” and “negative existentials” and “contradictions” can be useful in considering our lives and outlooks on the real world, but this could be a topic for another thread.

Bis bald,

Nick