Every time I comment on this thread the first person to respond to me thinks that I'm talking about Christianity and the god that they recognize, and it pisses me off.
I'm not talking about Christianity, Islam, or fucking Hinduism. I'm talking about
the idea of some sort of
higher power/being or "god", and the
absolute fact that you
cannot say for certain as you proclaim there is a god or there is no god.
Please, please, please read this. Stop right now and take away all of your preconceptions about me, religion and agnosticism. Please just read this devoid of emotion and tell me if it doesn't make sense.
Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.
That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”
― Thomas Henry Huxley
My beliefs are solely based off the logic that is explained in this quote. Please don't call yourself an atheist (as I'm assuming you do) and instead take to the agnostic position, as any logical person would have to do.
It's a beautiful philosophy to live by:
In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
GMpoison your approach is a logical one. However, you cannot escape the apriori. In matters of the intellect we can follow our reason as far as it will take us without regard to any other consideration but reason can never answer all questions. There will always be a need to make apriori assumptions. Even the refusal to make a choice is a choice and all choices have consequences and shape your interaction with the world. A helpful essay that illustrates the limitation of reasons and science is:
The Limits of ScienceIn your example above you do not define what good is and consequentially what constitutes evil. Without a definition you have no way of actually applying your worldview to reality.
For example one theist view of evil is the following.
http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/12-20.htmlAll the evil in the world is either:
1) Made by man and permitted by God because the evil is not worse than reducing all of humankind to mindless automata.
2) An effect of nature that God allowed because the alternative would be to prove His existence by intervention, thereby eliminating free will.
3) Something that only seems to be evil from our limited perspective, but wouldn't be judged evil if we have all the facts. These often become clear with sufficient hindsight, although they often do not, as well.
An common atheist perspective is that there is no such such thing as good or evil there is only "i like" and "i don't like" and even that can be reduced to simple biological imperatives which in turn are nothing more then chemical reactions in the brain without underlying meaning or significance.
These views when applied to life will take one to very different conclusion regarding what is moral, what is acceptable behavior, and how one should structure ones life. These conclusion in turn have consequences. I discussed some of these consequences in the
Health and Religion thread.
