A Challenge to My Anti-Agnostic Thinking?

A challenge to my anti-agnostic thinking?

Dear Damien,

During an internet search for people interested in “agnosticism” I came across your text “Agnosticism: Non-Standard Epistemology”. Since I am an agnostic, who is quite interested in epistemology, I would like to ask, what “Standard Epistemology” is. In academic epistemology one could not state that “Knowledge is Justified True Believe” without mentioning the so-called “Gettier-cases”. My agnosticism, which I delineated in a German essay called “Wahrhaftiger Glaube”, is based on critical epistemology. As atheists often deploy Russel’s “celestial teapot” against agnostics, it is also discussed briefly there. The problem with Atheism is not that it rejects the doctrines of widely known organized religions, which partly comprise tenets inconsistent with experiences or are at least lacking sufficient justification, but that it usually is accompanied by ideological naturalism, which likewise is an unjustified metaphysical assumption. Recently I tried to translate my deliberations into English. The text titled “Believing veraciously” is available by using the links at the bottom of this mail. I would be grateful, if you could make time to have a glance at it and give me a shorthand critical feedback. Thank You so much in advance!

Best regards, Johannes Weg

Files (PDF, ePub, html etc.) with a rough slightly revised second edition of the English translation of my text titled “Believing veraciously” in ZIP-folder may be downloaded by using the following link:
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1U4DE2TNcfxX3_uWuW6D5fM-u_x6knHAx
For direct online reading use:
https://ia801504.us.archive.org/9/items/Weg_BV2/Weg_BV2_html/Weg_BV2.html

A ZIP-folder with divers file formats (PDF, ePub, html etc.) of the bilingual version with the juxtaposition of the slightly revised second edition of “Believing veraciously” and the 21st edition of “Wahrhaftiger Glaube” is available here:
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=13QAeTrb-SxZTgKXv2qZFxGz5-RW8MPMW
For direct online reading use:
https://ia801500.us.archive.org/18/items/Weg_BV2_WG21/Weg_BV2_WG21_bilingual_html/Weg_BV2_WG21_bilingual.html

German files (PDF, ePub, html etc.) of the 21st edition of “Wahrhaftiger Glaube” in a ZIP-folder may be downloaded by using the following link:
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=13QAeTrb-SxZTgKXv2qZFxGz5-RW8MPMW
For direct online reading use:
https://ia801503.us.archive.org/10/items/Weg_WG21/Weg_WG21_html/Weg_WG21.html

The ZIP-folders also contain explanations about the suitability of the divers file formats, since it is important to read annotations within the foot-/end-notes (although many of them just consist of references).

Dear Johannes,

I am far from the standard atheist or atheist philosopher, so my answers and thinking are my own. I appreciate your inquiry. Epistemology is a way of knowing or understanding and agnostic thinking is but a claim of not knowing but saying it is making no claim, a clear violation of basic logic as well as you have agnostic thinking trying to push a non-epistemology as an epistemology, really? There is in logic only “A” or “not A”, so, no god or a god. Thus, agnosticism is not sound in logic, trying to profess an excluded middle position. I logically challenge the three letter noise termed god as to what one means by the three letters god and then how they can claim to know this with accuracy as not one term god is universal with a valid accuracy even within the same church of the same faith, and why well logic would make that clear to be something made up, so, not real and changes with the people telling it. It is also invalid as it tries to act as f you cannot prove a negative you can, so this is a belief stance not shared by experts in logic, who do hold that you can disprove a negative, so agnostic in this fails like all agnostic pseudo-philosophy offered to support this invalid notion that agnosticism is logical, it is not. Also, may I remind you that knowledge as well as certainty are epistemic properties of belief and thus are not separate as agnosticism seems to imply. To me, I feel like agnosticism is the rejection of the supremacy of reason, wishing to add skepticism in its place, which I fully reject.

Basics of my Methodological Rationalism Epistemology Approach

Here is why “Reason is my only master”

The most Base Presupposition begins in reason. Reason is needed for logic (logic is realized by the aid of reason enriching its axioms). Logic is needed for axiology/value theory (axiology is realized by the aid of logic). Axiology is needed for epistemology (epistemology is realized by aid of axiology value judge and enrich its value assumptions as valid or not). Epistemology is needed for a good ontology (ontology is realized by the aid of epistemology justified assumptions/realizations/conclusions). Then when one possesses a good ontology (fortified with valid and reliable reason and evidence) they can then say they know the ontology of that thing.

So, I think, right thinking is reason. Right reason is logic. Right logic, can be used for mathematics and from there we can get to science. And, by this methodological approach, we get one of the best ways of knowing the scientific method. Activating experience/event occurs, eliciting our feelings/scenes. Then naive thoughts occur, eliciting emotions as a response. Then it is our emotional intelligence over emotional hijacking, which entrance us but are unavoidable and that it is the navigating this successfully in a methodological way we call critical thinking or as In just call right thinking. So, to me, could be termed “Right” thinking, that is referring to a kind of methodological thinking. Reason is at the base of everything and it builds up from pragmatic approaches. And, to me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), to subjective (Coherence theory of truth), then onto objective (Correspondence theory of truth) but remember that this process as limited as it can be, is the best we have and we build one truth ontop another like blocks to a wall of truth.

Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth

In a general way, all reality, in a philosophic sense, is an emergent property of reason, and knowing how reason accrues does not remove its warrant. Feelings are experienced then perceived, leading to thinking, right thinking is reason, right reason is logic, right logic is mathematics, right mathematics is physics and from there all science.

Science is not common sense?

Science is quite the opposite of just common sense. To me, common sense in a relative way as it generally relates to the reality of things in the world, will involve “naive realism.” Whereas, most of those who are scientific thinkers, generally hold more to scientific realism or other stances far removed from the limited common sense naive realism. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Science is understanding what is, while religion is wishing on what is not.

Religion vs. Science, Don’t Confuse Beliefs

A basic outline of scientific epistemology:

Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability

*being epistemically certain, is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status, often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement*

Justified / True / Beliefs

Justified?

* To established justification, I use the philosophy called Reliabilism.

“Reliabilism is a general approach to epistemology that emphasizes the truth-conduciveness of a belief-forming process, method, or another epistemologically relevant factor. The reliability theme appears both in theories of knowledge and theories of justification.” Ref

True?

*For the true part, I use the philosophy called The Correspondence Theory of Truth.

“The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.” Ref

Beliefs?

*For the beliefs part, I use what philosophy calls The Ethics of Belief.

“The “ethics of belief” refers the intersection of epistemology, philosophy of mind, psychology, and ethics. The central is norms governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. It morally wrong (or epistemically irrational, or imprudent) to hold a belief on insufficient evidence. It morally right (or epistemically rational, or prudent) to believe on the basis of sufficient evidence, or to withhold belief in the perceived absence of evidence. It always obligatory to seek out all available epistemic evidence for a belief.” Ref I was asked about The Gettier Problem, well, to me Edmund Gettier only points out that more than just JTB is needed as there may be some beliefs outside of simply JTB which I do, I feel all stages need analysis and support not just some simple use of JTB. With my Methodological Rationalism Epistemology Approach, I try to show how to build accuracy in beliefs, of course, there are always many non-accurate ways beliefs may be arrived at, analyze or maintained, as well as updated or remove beliefs if found to be in error. We conceptualize epistemological attitudes and beliefs as components of metacognitive knowledge. As such, they serve an important function in regulating the use of epistemic strategies such as knowledge-based validation of information and checking arguments for internal consistency. Ref Epistemic Attitudes: Belief, Disbelief and Suspended Judgement. click here is an interesting but complicated article on this subject. To me, when assessing belief, one should think about reliabilism.I usually try to use a reliabilism approach to epistemology which emphasizes the truth-conduciveness of a belief-forming process, method, or other epistemologically relevant factors. The reliability theme appears in theories of knowledge, of justification, and of evidence. “Reliabilism” is sometimes used broadly to refer to any theory that emphasizes truth-getting or truth indicating properties. Ref

Knowledge without Belief? Justified beliefs or disbeliefs worthy of Knowledge?

Kind Regards, Damien

Agnostic vs Ignostic?

“Damien, as a philosophical position, agnosticism is the only honest position……. but it fails when presented with physical evidence.. and so it is the middle way…” – Challenger

My response, what is a god to doubt? I don’t start my disbelief on the dilutions of god claims I assess are these claims warranted they are not so nothing to doubt so agnosticism starts with a presupposition of the term god to say they are unsure about, thus, to me, making a thinking error as there is no presupposition god term to reality. I stand with ignosticism, roughly that the term god is given to much leeway as a valid offering of a possible real thing when no god claim if limited to only reality coherent attributes all add nonsense like supernatural things one of which at its simplest a being or at least a thinking thing with no physical mind but can think, an invisible thing and of courses an immaterial thing such as the no physical body in any way. And there we see the problem with accepting any god claim as even reality coherent as it is not. All claims must be coherent with or correspond to reality and just like many theological nonsense terms such as the soul. I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “soul” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, soul, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt. Similarly, I don’t know what people are talking about when they say the term “god” (it’s a made-up concept which connects to nothing that is reality coherent) as there is no part of the body exhibits as such magic thinking idea, god, thus a debunked claim and does not need doubt.

Kurtz, New Skepticism, 220: “Ignosticism or igtheism, finds the belief in a metaphysical, transcendent being basically incoherent and unintelligible.”

“Ignosticism or igtheism, is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul. Ignosticism is the view that any religious term or theological concept presented must be accompanied by a coherent definition. Without a clear definition, such terms cannot be meaningfully discussed. Such terms or concepts must also be falsifiable. Lacking this, an ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the existence or nature of the terms presented (and all matters of debate) is meaningless. For example, if the term “God” does not refer to anything reasonably defined then there is no conceivable method to test against the existence of god. Therefore, the term “God” has no literal significance and need not be debated or discussed.” Ref

Ignostic Atheist?

Damien, how do you feel about agnostics?

Explaining Axiological theism, Axiological agnosticism, and Axiological atheism

Discussions on Agnosticism and Atheism

My Anti-Agnostic Atheism Thinking

Theists and Atheists as well as Agnostics?

Agnosticism Beliefs Involve “FOLK LOGIC” Thinking?

Agnosticism: Non-Standard Epistemology

Agnosticism No Thanks, I am Ignostic

Truth Navigation and the fallacy of Fideism “faith-ism”

When you say “GOD,” what do you mean by god?

God fanatics seem to enjoy spouting unfounded claims thinking they have proven something they never do. How do you claim this as you first must prove a god something which to date there is no evidence of a god anything just empty wishful thinking confusion offered as clear truth to which its only illusions, the phantoms of hope-filled indoctrination learned often as little children, before they had a chance to reason then they hold these god-something lies as true never hardly thinking to question the evidence devoid assertions appealing to the bogus theory of revelation and faith which prove only humans have unchecked imaginations they keep thinking to create some other world reality that is just not real. And that is just getting started with the issues then you must prove god is even understands, is involved, or is in any way necessary to assume to understand reality, but it does not stop there as you must demonstrate which god story are you appealing to and how do you know that the claims attributed to the god fantasy you favor?

Theism is foolishness given some kind of undue credibility it never deserved. Theism seems to simply take older unjustifiable god myths or unjustifiable god themes, acting as if long ago magic was real when it never was nor do they have any evidence to start contemplating the claims as anything but unsupported with real justifications. Life beyond the mental slavery of god beliefs. I speak out against god myths and the harm such lies can hold. I may at times offend believers but, No one has the right to not be offended. Beliefs in gods don’t offend me per say, they sadden me to see others in the mental bondage of a life not their own. For to have a god belief is almost always to have a master belief one who is over you, one who you must live for or suffer. Belief in gods is often a life battle against guilt and shame. I care too much about others to stand by and let them continue a life of mental slavery and say nothing when such fears are lies and a free life of their own choosing free of god masters is available.

I do not tell others what to believe as it is their self-right but will explain there is a better way. 🙂 Any defined concept of god(s) offered is making stuff up out of nowhere and from nothing more than runaway imagination, wild misunderstanding, or outright lies. To say one knows God is just pretending to know things you do not know, nor have any reason to claim to know. As there is no tangible substance or evidence to access god(s) so all attributes are thus limited to baseless made-up fantasy.

What is a god? Just a Empty Label: https://damienmarieathope.com/2016/11/16/what-is-a-god-just-a-empty-label/

Doubt god(s)? No, I stopped believing Fairytales: https://damienmarieathope.com/2016/10/14/doubt-about-gods-no-i-stopped-believing-fairytales/

I Am a Strong Atheist: “I am psychologically certain god(s) don’t exist” https://damienmarieathope.com/2016/11/05/i-am-a-strong-atheist-i-am-psychologically-certain-gods-dont-exist/