The Kensho Agnostic ([info]pure_agnostic) wrote in [info]agnosticism,
@ 2008-02-18 20:31:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: contemplative

Agnosticism Aint Just For Deities Anymore
I came up with a list of things which we can never prove nor disprove.



We will never know if God exists.    Can't prove or disprove that one.

We will never know if souls exist.   Still, I think I made a strong argument against souls by asking "Can a soul get drunk?"

We will never know our futures with absolute certainty.   Even if the future is pre-determined, it remains completely unpredictable when you consider Chaos Theory and the butterfly effect.

We will never know some properties of the Universe.  If some physicists are right, it is impossible to create a theory of everything, a theory which explains all physical phenomena.

We will never know if we have free will or live in a completely deterministic universe.    Here is a paraphrase of what a friend of mine once said:

    * You can choose to believe you have free will.
    * You can choose to believe you don't have free will.
    * Either way, it is your choice.

We will never know the answers to some mathematical questions.  Some mathematical statements can never be proven true or false, so math will always remain incomplete or inconsistent.

We will never know if we are immortal.  You won't know as long as you live, and then once you die, you don't know anything.  Or maybe you do have a soul which survives death, but you won't know if that soul is immortal.

We will never know the emotions, intentions, or thoughts of anybody except ourselves.   We can guess at these from external behaviors, but never truly know what others experience.


ETA:
We will never know if numbers exist as abstract, necessarily existing objects, independent of the human mind. Or if they exist only in our minds.

You can never know if you are the only person, and the rest of in existence is just part of your imagination.  Maybe I live in a solipsitic reality where my brain sits in a vat and gets fed signals to make me think I have body.  Who knows?  Certainly not me.

We will never know the past with absolute certitude since too much evidence has been destroyed.



Each item on this list seems different from others.  One is about mere subjective experiences - and hence only knowable by one person.  Some are about pure logic and mathematics and hence we can know with objective certitude that some statements are forever unknowable.  Some are about physics and the nature of the universe.  And some are utterly within the realm of metaphysics.  Yet each seems unknowable.




(Post a new comment)


[info]rachaelkelly
2008-02-19 04:44 am UTC (link)
I don't think math is real. It's a language that humans created to explain how things in real life work.

If I want to get philosophical, the only thing I know for sure is that I think, therefore I am. But in day to day life, I disregard this and accept a lot of things as real.

Edited at 2008-02-19 04:46 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]pure_agnostic
2008-02-19 05:05 am UTC (link)
I don't think math is real. It's a language that humans created to explain how things in real life work.

Thanks for the reminder to add the nature of math to the list of unknowables. We will never know if numbers exist as abstract, necessarily existing objects, independent of the human mind. Or if they exist only in our minds.

By the way, you may want to read these entries about math:
http://community.livejournal.com/agnosticism/279222.html
http://community.livejournal.com/agnosticism/279023.html


the only thing I know for sure is that I think, therefore I am.

Ah, and that sounds like another item to add to the list. Solipsism. You can never know if you are the only person, and the rest of in existence is just part of your imagination.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jeffercine
2008-02-19 07:06 am UTC (link)
I tend to believe that basic math is universally universal. It is the one common language of this world. And quite possibly other worlds.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]arrrrrr2thecore
2008-02-19 10:34 am UTC (link)
(1) I think
__
(2) I am.

Invalid :)

There's a suppressed premise in there: (1.a.) If I think, then I am.

But Descartes made the same mistake :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]dimension_view
2008-02-19 05:41 am UTC (link)
I wish more people would adopt the view of 'we don't know and will never know'. People who think they know the answers just ruin this earth and its inhabitants.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]pure_agnostic
2008-02-19 05:57 am UTC (link)
Me too! I'd wish some of them would just learn to live in the land of I-Don't-Know. And just accept that some concepts are beyond knowing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mys_ebrel
2008-03-08 12:17 pm UTC (link)
amen to that!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jamiltr0n
2008-02-19 05:59 am UTC (link)
You can never know that you know what you think you know. :P

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]jeffercine
2008-02-19 07:02 am UTC (link)
Oh, I don't know about that. ;-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]melleecat
2008-02-19 07:02 am UTC (link)
One thing I do know...I loved this post.

(Reply to this)


[info]avis_noctis
2008-02-19 07:37 am UTC (link)
Is it odd that I find it comforting that so many things are unknowable?

(Reply to this)


[info]arrrrrr2thecore
2008-02-19 10:31 am UTC (link)
Dude, you have to have a whole thought session to determine whether a soul can get intoxicated? By stipulation, a soul is an immaterial object. Therefore has no blood thorough which to circulate alcohol, no body through which it could be distributed. Sorted.

Though now I've actually read that post to see what you were getting at, I see your idea.
You say "Either a soul is immaterial and should not be affected by anything physical. . . .Or the soul is physical, in which case, it can be affected by physical laws, and there is no reason to believe it would last forever."
I don't think this is exhaustive. Looking at the underlined bit, this is not the only possible way a mind (or 'soul') could be. Simply because a soul is immaterial doesn't mean it can't be affected by physical things. For example, here's an alternate view. Ff souls exist, they certainly use our bodies' perceptive abilities as means of taking in information. If these abilities are affected (by alcohol, for intance), to where they are less perceptive, or work in a different way, then our souls will read the information coming in in the distorted way in which it is arriving. I guess this is some sort of an Interactionist view I'm talking about. (If you'd like further background reading on Dualism, see SEP: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/)

Back to the main entry at hand:

I think it is wrong that we can say with complete certainty that we could never know that God exists or that souls exist (for the record, when push comes to shove, I am known to say I believe neither exists). Just because we don't have 'good enough' evidence now doesn't mean we won't get it eventually.
And the last one, about knowing others' thoughts and emotions...well there are plenty of people (who aren't 'crazy') who would tell you otherwise.

I'm having trouble getting a grasp on this "weak atheism" concept. Can you help clarify?

(Reply to this)


[info]direwolf23
2008-02-19 04:11 pm UTC (link)
I think you're confusing things which cannot be proven with things that we don't have the capacity of proving with our current abilities.

Take, for instance, people's attitude about either disease or the weather in 1000AD. No one at the time had the resources or knowledge to really understand these topics, or even the basic principles needed to make reasonable inferences about them. Likewise, whereas it is reasonable to assume that some things aren't provable, to prove others we simply need knowledge or technology that is not currently available to us.

God's existence, for example, is certainly a hard thing to prove. However, say we discovered some being that had the ability create life (and we could show created our planet/universe) and was providing a paradise sanctuary for souls. It wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that this being was God. As always, there's the problem of proving this with absolute certainty, but all proofs suffer from the same problem.

The same idea can be applied to souls. We certainly don't have any technology that can detect souls currently, but science has created instruments that have been theorized to sense other dimensions or planes of existence. Its not unreasonable to think that as some point we may be able to detect some energy signature that is connected to each living creature.

Also, when it comes to predicting the future, the only real limitation is knowledge of the factors involved. I'm sure at some point or another you yourself have taken a number of factors into consideration and predicted the outcome of some action or event. What's keeping you from being more accurate is simply the fact that you don't know, or can't take into account, all the factors that will determine the outcome.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]pure_agnostic
2008-02-20 08:25 am UTC (link)
You might be right in that someday, humanity will have better tools for understanding some phenomena - such as the thoughts and intentions and feelings of others. Right now, I'd say you can't know that for certain.

As for souls - I consider them so immaterial to the point where you can't measure them. You say that with the right equipment, we might measure them someday, but if they are metaphysical, then I consider souls as nothing more than imaginative fluff. If they are physical, then I consider them equivalent to a mind. And we already know minds are affected by alcohol.

"The invisible and the non-existent look very similar." - unknown author.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]direwolf23
2008-02-20 05:42 pm UTC (link)
I think I put forth a parallel which explains why the drunk soul paradox, isn't really a paradox, and how you drinking isn't actually affecting the soul. Here it is again:

"A way to think about this is that if you're a skill mechanic, and the tool your using is faulty or breaks, your skills haven't diminished. Equally so, if we are to assume that the soul is the controlling force behind our actions, just because our body might be faulty or break, it would not diminish the soul."


Beyond that, however, you're not allowing for the possibility that a soul, if it exists, doesn't adhere to the same rules normal matter does, and you're confusing the facts. Alcohol affects the chemical interactions in your brain, but the effects of a given substance are not universal. Alcohol doesn't affect a rock, and chocolate is poisonous to a dog though not to a human. Whereas alcohol may have a universal effect on the brains of terrestrial creatures, there is no guarantee, or even real implication, that it would affect a soul, or any entity of such a radical makeup, in a similar manner.

You say that souls are exceedingly immaterial, but I'd like to hear something to support that further, because otherwise it still seems perfectly reasonable that we don't have the means to test for them yet. Think of radiation. Just because you can't sense it without instruments doesn't mean its not there, or that it won't give you cancer.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Just Another Theory.
[info]basilwhite
2008-02-20 12:57 am UTC (link)
Just Another Theory

This choice about free will is why I now worship choice as my higher power. My philosophic stone is the relationship between belief and choice.

Edited at 2008-02-20 01:03 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Just Another Theory.
[info]pure_agnostic
2008-02-20 01:57 am UTC (link)
I enjoyed listening to several tracks on your comedy CD. Thanks for the laugh!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kotra
2008-02-20 07:15 am UTC (link)
I disagree with the last one, about knowing the emotions/thoughts/intentions of someone else. I agree that currently we can't do that, but I think it's probable that in the future technology will find a way to link up minds so that it is possible to "feel" the emotions of someone else, or "see" their thoughts. Of course, to echo [info]direwolf23's comment above, one still wouldn't be able to be absolutely sure the technology was working perfectly, but that applies to everything.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…