Richard Dawkins quote regarding agnostics: "Fence-sitting, intellectual cowards

[Frank Apisa]

ACC, do you understand that the statement
"Pending further information, we can be at least 50% confident that X is not the case"
is not equivalent to the statement
"Pending further information, we can be at least 50% confident that X is the case"?

Right you are, Mithrae. It is like some people claim that when I say:

I do not believe there are any gods...AND...I do not believe there are no gods...

...that I am contradicting myself.

I am not.

 

[Frank Apisa]

To quote the Bard:

"Indeed, the choice of "whence" or "from whence" does lie
In needs of verse, where meter rules apply.
If rhythm calls for but a single beat,
Then "whence" alone shall make the line complete.
Yet should the measure falter, weak or scant,
"From whence" may serve the harmony you want.
For poets' craft, let syllables decide,
And not prescriptive grammar be your guide."

The Bard ****ed up at times also.

In any case, if you are arguing that using "from whence" is accepted academically and in formal exposition...you are incorrect.

My guess...YOU would not use it.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

If I invented the scenario that you are a six eyed, ten legged being from a planet circling a star in another galaxy that was sent here billions of years ago just to confront me, if I ever came into existence on the question of whether or not it is possible for at least one god to exist...

So you believe the bible is not an "invented scenario"?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Which is more important, knowledge or belief?

If knowledge is more important (as I'm assuming virtually all intelligent non-religious folk will answer), then why do you identify yourself in relation to/opposition to belief and attack agnostics who identify themselves in relation to knowledge/lack thereof?

Absolutely beautiful!

 

[Frank Apisa]

Indeed. Among other places.



It is the conclusion that @Frank Apisa been arguing for, and which I have been arguing against.

This is Frank's position:



And more explicitly:

You are being absurd now...but I am thoroughly enjoying Mithrae's cogent responses.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

If you cannot figure that out on your own, I cannot think of a way to explain it.

Let me help you out with a way to explain it then.

Any conjecture you make is at most a single possibility out of an infinite set of possibilities. Barring any cause to weight the possibility beyond the other infinitely many possibilities, the likelihood of that particular conjecture also coincidentally happening to exist is accordingly infinitesimal.

But it isn't because you make the conjecture that it's likelihood is infinitesimal. The act of making the conjecture does not reduce the likelihood down to infinitesimal. It already had infinitesimal likelihood before the conjecture was made.

A 50/50 chance of a conjecture being true is not a rational default assumption in the absence of evidence for or against. The default confidence for any specific conjecture should initialize as infinitesimal. Confidence beyond that is only rationally warranted based on evidence for a model which supports the plausibility of the conjecture.

 

[Frank Apisa]

More that random weirdos' threats of eternal torture are an incredibly poor basis even for obeying or pretending to 'believe in' their preferred deity, let alone knowing that they exist.

They seem to think that Pascal's Wager makes sense. They seem to think that their god would not see through the deception it requires. Just have to be amazed they suppose that.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Here is the cite from which I got the title of this thread: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Quotes/RichardDawkins

His quote, of course, has to do with claims in regards to a God or gods. Here is a dicussion regarding Dawkin's claims about agnosticism in a more general sense:

"But agnosticism has its place. As Richard Dawkins points out in his best-selling book on religion, The God Delusion, it is perfectly rational for someone to be agnostic on the questions of whether there is other intelligent life in the universe, or what exactly caused the last mass-extinction event.

The reason agnosticism fits here is because these are knowable things that we simply do not know at this time. Perhaps we will learn these answers soon, or perhaps we never will, but either way a truth does concretely exist regardless of whether or not we have it in our possession. Other examples would include questions regarding the origin of life on earth, or what existed before the big bang."

In other words, if we humans study long and hard enough, we may indeed at some point in the future KNOW the answers to these questions because we already KNOW that they are factual items.

Why You Shouldn’t Be Calling Yourself Agnostic

September 4, 2009 — After much spirited debate I have come to the conclusion that the argument presented below is much weaker than it should be. I am redo

danielmiessler.com

So that falls in line with agnostics claiming that it is about "knowing", but Dawkins says that such "knowing" only truly applies to that with has some evidence of its actuality. Science has shown, for instance, that the Big Bang was the event that spawned our universe, but we can't know for certain what there was prior to that, but neither does that mean that we simply overlay a "God" onto the event and claim that it is thus solved.

The underlying problem with agnosticism is that it defeats itself at its very foundation. Here is a normally accepted definition: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable."
The very instant that the agnostic refers to a "God" or "gods", then that agnostic is basically admitting that he or she DOES know of such an entity or energy because simply using that word indicates a definition or description associated with it. How can you define or describe something but at the same time claim that you can't "know" it? You have already done so by simply using the word, and thus your argument defeats itself.

Perhaps an agnostic could claim, as above, that he or she "cannot know" an ultimate reality, but if that "reality" includes some sort of entity or energy that is a "cause" of the universe, then that is simply defining that "ultimate reality" in accordance with the same definition or description as the word "god" in the dictionary. As soon as there is any indication of acceptance of a definition or description that is normally used in reference to a God or gods, then the agnostic is admitting to "knowing" what is meant.

I agree with Dawkins--agnosticism is "intellectual cowardice", per the title of the thread and the associated cite.

I welcome discussion from my friends who are agnosticsif they do not agree.

I believe you've posted this or something very similar to it before. I see your position has not changed, you are not satisfied for some reason unless a person renounces any possibility of any singular deity "creator" especially one of a religious or omnipotent type.

I would tend to agree mostly, but on the other hand its a 100% magic Universe. A bunch of larger and smaller marbles floating around in space (for some reason), some colossal burning explosions of gasses, fusion reactions lasting billions of years. Nebula. Gravity. The most intelligent person is completely ignorant of the true nature of the Universe.

At the end of the day, would it really be so crazy that a magic guy would create or control a magic Universe? I myself strenuously doubt it was some sort of omnipotent deity, but then can't 100% rule it out either.

Somewhere along the line some magic was infused into the equation for sure, thats all I know for certain. Every bit of this is a mathematical impossibility IMO. And yet: here it all is, and here we are.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

It is considered an ignorant usage.

And yet Shakespeare and Jane Austin both used that terminology.
How do you explain that?

 

[BabaVoss]

If asked what I believe, I say I am an atheist.
If asked what I can prove, I say I am agnostic.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Let me ask.
So you think the bible has more credence because you believe it wasn't something someone "just made up?"

My position on the Bible has been posted many times, but here it is again:



While I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about the existence of gods...I certainly have enough upon which to make a guess about the Bible. Here it is:



My guess, for what it is worth, is that it is a very self-serving history (of sorts) of the early Hebrew people...a relatively unsophisticated, unknowledgeable, superstitious people who had many enemies in the areas where they lived. Their enemies worshiped barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty gods. And to protect themselves from those gods, they invented an especially barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty god...and worshiped it. The story seems to be a necessary mythology. The mythology served a needed purpose at that time and I can easily understand why the ancient Hebrews felt about it the way they did.

The fact that modern theists feel the way they do about it...is disappointing and disheartening.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Let me help you out with a way to explain it then.

Any conjecture you make is at most a single possibility out of an infinite set of possibilities. Barring any cause to weight the possibility beyond the other infinitely many possibilities, the likelihood of that particular conjecture also coincidentally happening to exist is accordingly infinitesimal.

But it isn't because you make the conjecture that it's likelihood is infinitesimal. The act of making the conjecture does not reduce the likelihood down to infinitesimal. It already had infinitesimal likelihood before the conjecture was made.

A 50/50 chance of a conjecture being true is not a rational default assumption in the absence of evidence for or against. The default confidence for any specific conjecture should initialize as infinitesimal. Confidence beyond that is only rationally warranted based on evidence for a model which supports the plausibility of the conjecture.

Yada, yada, yada.

 

[Frank Apisa]

And yet Shakespeare and Jane Austin both used that terminology.
How do you explain that?

I do not have to explain it.

Do you use "from whence?"

Do you think academics today would in an academic paper?

 

[Crakhobarbie]

I do not have to explain it.

Do you use "from whence?"

Do you think academics today would in an academic paper?

Technically, “from whence” is redundant.
Yet we know that it's use is acceptable because great writers have used it many times in the past.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

The Bard ****ed up at times also.

In any case, if you are arguing that using "from whence" is accepted academically and in formal exposition...you are incorrect.

My guess...YOU would not use it.

Your guess is right; I tend to favor "whence,"
But yet ofttimes I find it doth make sense
To use "from whence" in order to ensure
Good use of iambic pentameter.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Technically, “from whence” is redundant.
Yet we know that it's use is acceptable because great writers have used it many times in the past.

You quoted me asking two questions:

Do you use "from whence?"

Do you think academics today would in an academic paper?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Your guess is right; I tend to favor "whence,"
But yet ofttimes I find it doth make sense
To use "from whence" in order to ensure
Good use of iambic pentameter.

CC...thank you for what I consider, at least for the moment, one of the best responses in this thread.

I enjoyed it.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

You quoted me asking two questions:

Do you use "from whence?"

Do you think academics today would in an academic paper?

Whether or not I'd use the terminology is irrelevant.
What is relevant is whether or not using it is acceptable.
Shakespeare and Jane Austin have shown us that it is, by including it in their writings.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Whether or not I'd use the terminology is irrelevant.

Your avoidance of the question about you using it is noted.

My guess: You would not use it...except to permit a particular grammatical measure...as noted by CC.

I also note your avoidance of the question speculating about whether academics using it in academic paper.

My guess: You realize that most academics would avoid it...as much as they would using "irregardless."

What is relevant is whether or not using it is acceptable.

Using all sorts of words and phrases is acceptable...but most intelligent people will refrain from some things. The words that are asterisked here in this forum, for instance.

Put, continue to pick at those nits. You are doing things well within reason.

Shakespeare and Jane Austin have shown us that it is, by including it in their writings.

They have not, but I understand what you were trying to suggest.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

They have not,

Let them be whipp'd through every market town till they come to Berwick, from whence they came. — Shakespeare, Henry VI, part 2, 1592

… Sittingbourne, from whence we had a famous pair of horses … — Jane Austen, letter, 24 Oct. 1798

… addressed to this place, from whence it will be forwarded to me … — Lord Byron, letter, 31 Aug. 1809

 

[Frank Apisa]

Let them be whipp'd through every market town till they come to Berwick, from whence they came. — Shakespeare, Henry VI, part 2, 1592

… Sittingbourne, from whence we had a famous pair of horses … — Jane Austen, letter, 24 Oct. 1798

… addressed to this place, from whence it will be forwarded to me … — Lord Byron, letter, 31 Aug. 1809

You seem to think that because they did it...they are showing us that it is acceptable.

Those two using it does no more to show us it is acceptable than would Jacqueline Suzzanne doing it.

They simply did it.

It still would be looked upon as an ignorant usage by most people not in an Internet discussion trying to make a quip of mine seem wrong.

 

[Mulefoot]

When did not having a particular belief thank you very much, morph into a "life-creed"? It's a tiny part of one's enlightened existence, not a guiding force.

No, it's definitely a life creed.

The Atheist’s Creed

This is one example of an atheist’s creed. Perhaps it will help others to better understand atheists. Atheist’s creed In 2010, English religion-atheism philosopher Michael Palmer (1945-), in the opening page of 2010 The Atheist's Creed, stated the following is a six-point "I believe" stylized...

debatepolitics.com

 

[Crakhobarbie]

You seem to think that because they did it...they are showing us that it is acceptable.

Those two using it does no more to show us it is acceptable than would Jacqueline Suzzanne doing it.

They simply did it.

It still would be looked upon as an ignorant usage by most people not in an Internet discussion trying to make a quip of mine seem wrong.

Well they did use it, so obviously it is acceptable.
Merriam Webster stated:
"The fact is that both the phrase and the bare adverb have been used for centuries, and there is nothing wrong with either. Whatever the condemnations that sometimes are made, from whence is well established, and you should feel free to use it"

I share Merriam Webster's opinion that, even though technically redundant, the terminology has been used for centuries, and thus it is acceptable.

Is it wrong to say 'from whence'?

The word means 'from what place, source, or cause'

www.google.com

 

[watsup]

You quoted me asking two questions:

Do you use "from whence?"

Do you think academics today would in an academic paper?

Nor would academics use “whence”. It is a word that only makes sense when used by ancient scribes. It is simply no longer in much use. But you still haven’t told me from whence your so-called creator god supposedly came.

 

[watsup]

@Michael Cole seems to believe that if a word can be used for something it is automatically 'knowable.' That seems obviously incorrect, wouldn't you agree?

Not at all. He is exactly correct. No word of any merit in language can exist without a definition such that humans can talk to one another in a rational manner. If everyone would get to just use words however they want, reasoned conversation would simply not be possible. As such, when a human uses a “noun” word, there is some sort of understanding in that person’s mind as to its descriptive meaning. Again, as such, when an agnostic uses the word “god”, it’s not just an empty space in their head but rather that agnostic has attached some sort of meaning to it. The bottom line is that no matter what descriptive meaning the agnostic attaches to the word, said agnostic does indeed exhibit a “knowing” of some sort of god, and the defintion and descriptions of “god” simply do not exist outside of culture. It is humans who give meaning to the term and I seriously doubt that any of them have come up with a brand new conception of the word that does not already exist in the culture of that person.
And I still don’t know your specific claim as to the proper definition of an agnostic.