How to Respond to a Hardcore Agnostic? (Video)

How do you respond to hardcore agnostics who are radically skeptical of all religion and unwilling to make a decision?

Comments

[brgulker]

I think there's a significant difference between saying something like,

"Your religious claims are false." (which Greg appears to be saying is the conclusion of "no one can know about this")

And,

"Your religious claims are unsupported."

The latter is the type of thing I've heard from the majority of the agnostics with whom I interact.

The latter is the type of thing I've heard from the majority of atheists with whom I interact.

That said, if an agnostic has weighed the available evidence carefully and come to that latter conclusion, I'm not sure how critical I could be of that person for saying something like, "Based on my understanding of the evidence, I'm not sure how anyone could actually know [religious proposition x, y or z]."

To me, that's not all that radical, and it's not all that aggressive. It's just an honest assessment of how the person views the situation.

[Billy]

brgulker

So their assessment is just an opinion?

[RonH]

Skepticism is a method. Not a point of view.

[Billy]

I'm skeptical about that. Does that make it unproven?

[Ron (King of King Strang Highway) nH]

Billy,

I'm familiar with the phrase 'religious skeptic'.

However, this is what I mean.

RonH

[Billy]

So could a skeptic hold beliefs that are void of faith commitments?

[Steve Abernathy]

Ron,

I agree that skeptisism is a method and not a point of view. What is meant then by those who claim "I am a skeptic? Or I am skepticle? Specificly pertaining to religous or spiritual matters. Do they mean; I am one who prescribes to a rational set of methodologoy? In my expieriance they usually mean "I don't beleive what you are saying."

According to Mr. Dunning and his prescribed method of sckepticism he says "The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion."

How does one apply this methodology to the soul? Or the spirit?

Keep in mind I am not arguing with the correct definition(as Mr. Dunning defines it), but instead pointing to how it is in the majority missused as a defense or objection.

[Ron (King of King Strang Highway) H]

They're not skeptical of their skepticism.

To be skeptical of skepticsim would mean to say, "Maybe this evidence stuff is not all it is cracked up to be; maybe I should go ahead and adopt beliefs without having reasons."

[Ron (King of King Strang Highway) H]

Agnosticism is (paraphrasing)

1) You haven't looked at the evidence, or

2) you find there is a 'tie' in the evidence or

3) you think it is impossible to know.

I want to offer an alternative for Greg's #2.

Greg's #2 implies that agnosticism means thinking that the probability that God exists is exactly 50%: in his picture, agnosticism abruptly shuts off once a person thinks the probability is distinguishable from 50%.

I suggest instead thinking of agnosticism is a kind of opposite or complement or inverse of confidence; you are agnostic to the extent that you are not confident.

If you say the probability of God's existence is 100% or 0% you are not agnostic at all. You are fully confident

Otherwise, you are less than fully confident. You are, to some degree, agnostic.

If you think the probability is 50%, then you have no confidence either way. You are maximally agnostic.

Instead of shutting off when you move away from 50%, agnosticism tapers off just while confidence builds.

[Ron (BikeKing of King Strang Highway) H]

Greg can't seem to decide if he is talking about a hardcore agnostic (#3 above) or some kind of 'skeptic' who is convinced that religious claims are false.

The whole video seems to exist to deliver a bumper sticker: Be skeptical of skepticism.

[Billy]

Here's something that I think is relevant:

"No Assumptions" Makes No Sense

The attitude which feigns that there ought to be no element within Christian commitment which has not been independently proven is illustrated by the statement of C. Gore: "It seems to me that the right course for anyone who cannot accept the mere voice of authority, but feels the imperative obligation to 'face the arguments' and to think freely, is to begin at the beginning and to see how far he can reconstruct his religious beliefs stage by stage on a secure foundation, as far as possible without any preliminary assumptions...."[3] Here we are told to examine the religious hypothesis from the beginning without preliminary assumptions - without presuppositions.

Of course, this is quite literally impossible. A complete demonstration of each of our beliefs by means of other independent beliefs cannot be given. When I demonstrate the truth that ice melts at room temperature, I press into service certain standards and procedures of demonstration. But the question can be asked whether I have chosen the correct criteria to use for demonstrating my conclusion. Further, can I be sure that I have properly used the chosen procedures and standards? In order to proceed "without assumptions," I would need to demonstrate that my methods of demonstration are the correct ones and that my execution of these methods was faultless. But that will call for further argumentation or proof about the proof used for the veracity and validity of my original demonstration. And on and on we would go.

If there can be no assumed starting point for a demonstration, then no demonstration can get started - or finished, depending upon how you look at it.

If an unbeliever considers Christianity to be irrational simply on the basis that it allows for something to be accepted without independent demonstration, then the unbeliever in question is unrealistic and must be pressed to see that he ends up refuting himself (not simply Christians) in terms of such values and demands. Thus his unbelieving attitude turns out to be the truly irrational attitude, for it inconsistently requires something of its opponents which it does not live up to itself. Such an attitude would make knowledge of anything whatsoever impossible for finite and faulty creatures - and thus shows itself to be supremely unreasonable.

[Ron (BikeKing of King Strang Highway) H]

Billy,

So, having defeated the 'no assumptions' approach.

In making your Christian commitment, then:

Which assumptions to you propose admitting and why?

Which assumptions, if any, can still be barred and why?

RonH

[Billy]

My Christian commitment is based on Faith.

[Billy]

This is lengthy, but a good follow up. I didn't compose this either, but i like it and wanted to share:

The Kind of Evidence on Which Faith Rests

The problem with Christian faith, then, cannot be that it involves presuppositional commitments. So we move on to consider one last category of unbelievers who criticize Christian "faith" as irrational. These critics acknowledge that believers have evidence and reasoning which they enlist in support of their beliefs, and they admit that nobody - not even religious sceptics - can proceed intellectually without assumptions nor prove everything they believe by independent considerations. What they object to, however, is the kind of evidence to which Christians appeal and the kind of presuppositions in terms of which they reason. To put it briefly: they object to the idea of believing something on the basis of God's personal authority, rather than on the basis of impersonal and universally accepted norms of observation, logic, utility, etc.

Christians may have evidence, then, for their faith, but it is completely the wrong kind of evidence, says the unbeliever. For instance, in his candidly titled book Religion without Revelation, Julian Huxley says: "I believe firmly that the scientific method, although slow and never claiming to lead to complete truth, is the only method which in the long run will give satisfactory foundations for beliefs," and "we quite assuredly at present know nothing beyond this world and natural experience."[4] For Huxley, Christian faith should not be grounded in revealed authority (since all metaphysical knowledge is precluded by decree), but in the authority of natural science.

What Huxley openly displays here is his own faith-commitment with its prejudice against Christianity. Having said on the one hand that the scientific method cannot give the complete truth, he turned around on the other hand and, based on the authority of the alleged scientific method, completely ruled out knowing anything beyond the natural world! Why does Huxley count out the kind of evidence offered by Christians for their faith (revelation from God)? Because of his own faith and devotion to natural science.

In God and Philosophy, Antony Flew likewise expresses the unbeliever's criticism of Christian faith for resting upon authority. "An appeal to authority here cannot be allowed to be final and overriding. For what is in question precisely is the status and authority of all religious authorities.... [It is] inherently impossible for either faith or authority to serve as themselves the ultimate credentials of revelation."[5] The teaching of Scripture cannot be accepted on the authority of God speaking therein, says Flew, because it is precisely that authority which is under question by the unbeliever.

This can only mean, then, that Flew has determined in advance that God cannot be the ultimate authority. For him, there must always be something independent of God which is more authoritative and in terms of which the authority of God can be accepted. Nor can God's authority be inescapable and self-validating, according to Flew: "the philosopher examining a concept is not at that time himself employing it; however much he may at other times wish and need to do so."[6]

Does Flew really pretend that he himself as a philosopher strictly and purely adheres to this general prerequisite - that we may not examine something while simultaneously employing it? This is simply not so, and Flew should know better. Those who examine and argue about logic simultaneously employ that same logic in their examinations. Those who examine and evaluate the powers and reliability of the eyeball simultaneously employ their eyeballs. To wave off and automatically preclude the possibility that Christians could examine and argue about the authority of God's revelation while simultaneously employing (assuming, applying) the authority of God's revelation is little more than arbitrary prejudice on Flew's part.

Flew simply will not permit the thought that God's authority is self-validating. What is remarkable about his or any other unbeliever's refusal to submit in faith to God's authority on the basis of that very authority is that he thereby only discloses that he is committed in advance against Christian teaching. That is, it reveals an obvious and personal faith commitment to the proposition that there cannot be a God who speaks with a voice of inescapable, ultimate, self-validating authority over man and his thinking.[7]

God cannot have this kind of final authority for Flew, but only such an authority which will first be authorized by the reasoning of man. In the long run Flew and other unbelievers insist that man must not be reduced to bowing in abject dependence upon his Creator as the final authority. There can be other self-validating authorities acknowledged or entertained as a possibility, but not God. They will tolerate the Creator in their thinking only on the terms dictated by the creature - notably that He never confront men with the rational inescapability and ultimate authority of their Creator!

As Van Til observes: "The natural man then assumes that he has the final criterion of truth within himself. Every form of authority that comes to him must justify itself by standards inherent in man and operative apart from the authority that speaks."[8] Elsewhere he had noted that "If we must determine the foundations of the authority, we no longer accept authority on authority."[9] This is just to say that God cannot be permitted by the unbeliever to be and to speak as God - to be the ultimate and self-authenticating authority. Such a position and privilege will be assigned by the unbeliever to something else, something which is part of the creation (such as man's reasoning, experience)[10] and thus is implicitly treated as an idol. "They worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25).

The bottom line then, is that to criticize the Christian's irrational "faith" is itself nothing more than to express a different religious faith - a faith which in one way or another adopts the ultimate authority and self-sufficiency of the human mind and reasoning. That is irrational "faith" indeed, given the sad experience and history of mankind - as well as the unresolved, rational tensions within autonomous science and philosophy.

[RonH]

Steve,

If I say I'm a skeptic I just mean I try to practice skepticism across the board and roughly as Dunning describes.

When others say they are religious skeptics I think they usually mean that they mean they don't believe. I don't use the word this way but I accept that others do. Similarly, I recognize that some use atheist to mean denial not just non-belief.

We don't have any authority for 'true' meanings of words. (Dictionaries report usage their editors think we need to know about.) I'm going to try to convince Dunning of this. Maybe he'll edit the page.

Soul? Spirit? Maybe inquiry can be made into these, depending on how they are defined.

RonH

[scbrownlhrm]

Brgulker --

Maybe this will help a little; it's only a brief touch but it gives us some sight on "Know".....

......you must be careful not to invoke any Is-Statements about the All-Context, as you here argue that such Knowing is not available to Man's Consciousness. Contextual Semantics leaves you asserting the Arbitrariness of this statement: “Arbitrary Is Arbitrary”.

Nonsense-Is-Nonsense in All-Contexts. If you refute the capacity of Man's Consciousness to make this Is-Statement about the Everywhere And Always, then a faint possibility of round squares exists inside of the Subtext upon which your Thesis about Context is built. If you do not refute it, then our Logic sees to the End of Ad Infinitum, yet does not know infinitely.

The Non-Arbitrary Semantics of the All-Context Language which Man's Consciousness uses to make Is-Statements to the end of Ad Infinitum, while not knowing infinitely, are found in his Logic and in his Love.

A little more: Personhood comes in. All of our questions about Good and Evil and Ought-To and Should-Have and It-Would-Have-Better-If are, oddly, "raised by Persons about Persons". The entire body of Semantics within the Language with which we speak about the Non-Arbitrary Everywhere and Always is Nonsense outside of Person, or Personhood, or Persons. The All-Context capacity of Man's Consciousness allows his Logic to make the Non-Arbitrary, Non-Contextual Is-Statement of Nonsense Is Nonsense In All Contexts. There are no round squares, anywhere, ever, always, in any context. Our Consciousness here sees, and therefore knows, to and at the End of Ad Infinitum, while not knowing infinitely. In the same way, the other half of Man’s Consciousness, the twin of Logic, which is Love, also sees, and therefore knows, to and at the End of Ad Infinitum, yet does not know infinitely. The Non-Arbitrary here lives. The Everywhere and Always. Man here has his first Taste of the Infinite, and, once the Immutable, the Uncreated, that which “Is” becomes Taste-Able by Consciousness, all becomes possible. There are no such things as round squares. Nonsense is Nonsense in All-Contexts, and, therein the Non-Arbitrary Semantics of the wholly Objective Language swallows up whole the Purely Arbitrary Language of Contextual-Semantics. The All contains within it the Each. Photons “have to”. You and I “ought to”. There is nothing a Person “has to do”. He can choose to live, to die, to starve, to feast, to run, to remain still. Inside of Person and Personhood the “ought to” Language lives forever, while no such Semantics exist inside of the purely Impersonal. The Personhood or the Personal houses the Ought-To for “I” ought to, and this is the door by which Agency lives. But, the Impersonal houses the Have-To, for “Photons” Have-To, and there is no Agency. Personhood houses Agency and Agency houses Ought-To, there in the Personal and this Bedrock has its Own-Language, a Language which cannot be applied within the Impersonal. The Impersonal, void of Personhood, is thereby void of Agency, and is thereby void of Ought-To and lives only in the Have-To of Blind-Photon-Reverberations. Love’s Non-Arbitrary Ought lives only if and when and where Personhood lives. And, inside of Love’s Triune we find just that. The I, the You, and therein the Singular-We of the I-You is forever birthed, forever begotten inside of the Triune I-You-We. “God Is Love” breaks down to God Is Triune, which gives Love the valid claim at the End of Ad Infinitum where the Immutable, the Non-Arbitrary, the Everywhere and Always lives in which Personhood lives Uncreated.

God Is Love. Or, Ultimate Reality Is Love.

When we see Ultimate Reality Is-Love we see that the Highest Ethic Is-Love. The Immutable Bedrock of All-Contexts, of All, Is-Love. There is a Hard-Stop "there" in Un-Derived Love beyond which a Derived-It or a Derived-Person will never be able to get "past". There is no "past" the Immutable and Eternal and Uncreated Hard-Stop, which is the Uncreated, the Un-Derived, the Primary.