In response to: ARGUMENT AGAINST AGNOSTICISM - https://transcendentphilos.wixsite.com/website/forum/transcendent-discussion/argument-against-agnosticism
INTERLOCUTOR 1:
TP:
If you could estimate your probability calculation for the Mormon god (or your choice of god) what number would you pick?
My next question is how your answer impacts your feelings about pascal's wager
INTERLOCUTOR:
Mormon god at maybe .1%. Some form of God maybe 5%. How about you? I don’t find Pascal’s wager at all compelling. By that logic we should seek out the religion with the most horrific punishment for disbelief and adhere to that. If this universe is ruled by a just god I don’t believe he would punish us for honest disbelief. If this universe is ruled by an unjust god, we’re all likely screwed anyway.
TP:
Yeah, that's pretty similar to how I feel. I think it the Mormon god would probably take a 1 in a million chance to be real, so 0.0001%. The Abrahamic god probably the same. Another type of God - hmm, probably like 1%.
I left the church still believing in the Mormon God (spiritual experience), but my spiritual experiences were evincing a racist, cruel, manipulative, harsh god, so he lost his "worthiness of being worshiped" in my eyes
over 6 years, my probabilistic calculation for God's existence slowly dropped as I deconstructed and found new ways to interpret my spiritual experiences.
so it went from like 100% to losing 20% a year, and when it dropped below 1%, I randomly woke up one day and suddenly the title "atheist" felt more comfortable than "agnostic"
and pascal's wager lost all power over me at that point
so that felt like a point of "gnosticism" if you will
the probability got high enough to qualify as knowledge
INTERLOCUTOR:
Yeah I’m not far from that. I want to maintain an agnostic attitude, but my degree of confidence is probably more in the gnostic range. That’s why I consider agnosticism an attitude towards our knowledge rather than a quantifiable confidence level. For example I would never go up in public and say “I know God doesn’t exist”.
TP:
do you view that sentence as evoking 100% certainty?
INTERLOCUTOR:
Not necessarily, but it speaks to something very close, and with an attitude of certainty. Some things I would say with that degree of certainty, but not the question of god.
TP:
[ I would never go up in public and say “I know God doesn’t exist”.] - I like this as kindof a measurable heuristic
if the answer is yes, that is a measurement of Gnosticism
"I know that I the sun will rise tomorrow"?
"I know that gravity will still be operating when I wake up"?
"I know that my memories of my past are real, and not implanted during my period of sleep"?
"I know that I am not a brain in a vat"?
"I know other minds are as real as mine"?
my examples are potential knowledge claims that you can utter in public (gnostic) or refuse to utter (agnostic)
curious if you would utter them
INTERLOCUTOR:
Yeah I think I would be comfortable saying those things. For some I might say I’m very confident, so maybe some agnostic leanings on some of those.
TP:
I wonder if knowledge requires something more like four 9s of probability 99.99%
i think I have six 9s on the Mormon god (1- 0.0001%) so I would feel comfortable saying I know he doesn't exist
i have some complex ideas on the nature of knowledge, episteme, zeitgeist, justified belief, etc that I need to write down to organize me thoughts
INTERLOCUTOR 2:
INTERLOCUTOR:
No, knowledge would mean certainty.
There is a gumball machine with 100 gum balls (51 green and 49 yellow).
I do not have knowledge about which color gumball I will get if I purchase one.
Even using your preferred definition of knowledge, 51% (or even 50/50) is not knowledge.
And absolutely certain knowledge does exist...incorrigible knowledge.
TP:
Excellent point! (referring to the first point) I've been waiting for someone to point this out and you are the first! Would you at least grant that it takes incremental knowledge to go from 50% to 51%? The 51% conclusion doesn't qualify as knowledge, but the shift does, right?
I would love to see your examples of certain knowledge if you have them!!
INTERLOCUTOR:
I think it is impossible to place a percentage on probability in absence of an objective measure (for example, the gum balls in my example provide a known quantity of each, hence we have a known probability of each).
With regard to incorrigible knowledge, here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorrigibility
I would say something like "I feel hunger" is incorrigible knowledge, providing the individual does, in fact, feel hunger, and the statement is not intended to deceive. So, it is knowledge that would only be known to the self...but the sensation is certain to the self. Keep in mind, that something like "phantom limb sensation" would not actually be true (the limb does not exist), but the sensation is true and does exist, making it true and making it certain personal knowledge.
TP:
I view the brain as a Bayesian probability machine. Everything we sense is brought in as probabilistic data. The brain then tries to organize millions of factors to inform our probabilistic intuitions about truth, knowledge, and belief. I view de facto probability (informal probability) as the source of our brain's knowledge intuitions. The fact that we don't always have objective measurements just means we don't have an objective probability calculation. But we still have a de facto subjective probability calculation - necessarily due to our biology. So the lack of objective measuring tools doesn't change our internal epistemology.
When it comes to "I feel hunger", I think that you would agree that the only way this proposition can be 100% certain is if the sum of its parts is 100% certain? Do we have 100% certainty in what "I" means? Do we have 100% certainty in what "feel" means? Do we have 100% certainty in what "hunger" means? If not, do you still think it is fair to claim 100% certainty about the combination of uncertain factors?
INTERLOCUTOR:
But even using your model, the differentiation between "knowledge" and "belief" is subjective. Since you seem to believe there is an incremental increase in probability between 50% and 51%, this would extend to 100% (which you do not believe is possible, and many philosophers would likely agree). However, at this point labeling something as knowledge or belief is rather pointless, since you may internally place an 85% probability on something and label it knowledge, and another person could place an 85% probability on something and label it a belief.
The meaning of those component parts would be according to your own understanding of them. So, the certainty is that you are experiencing something that is consistent with your personal understanding of the sensation of hunger.
TP:
Lots of people intuit that they have free will, do you believe this is the case? I am of the belief that free will is an illusion. If the vast majority of people can be confused about something like this, what stops them from being confused about hunger?
Per the utility of "knowledge" and "belief" if it is subjective and uncertain - my epistemological perspective is that each epoch lives within a epistemic noosphere, or an episteme - a body of knowledge floating around in the minds of the people. I don't view this as 100% certain knowledge - it is their best attempt at truth based on the evidence at their fingertips. So, in my epistemic paradigm, people living before Copernican Revolution were justified in claiming that "they know that the sun revolves around the earth" because that was the conclusion with the highest probability within their epoch. The episteme justifies knowledge claims. After Galileo, they are no longer justified in the geocentric worldview - because it is no longer the explanation with the most probability.
The utility of my framework for knowledge is that when knowledge is defined in terms of probability, we theoretically can measure out which truth claims are most justified within our current episteme. We don't need 100% certainty to unify around a "most justified reality". If we can't unify around the same reality, then we are bound to have social issues.
INTERLOCUTOR:
I am not really knowledgeable enough on the topic to really say one way or another. I probably lean towards soft determinism. Incidentally, I also believe morality is an illusion. It is not a "real" thing that exists, but merely a concept we each hold subjectively.
With regard to incorrigible knowledge, it would not matter if it is an illusion, it is true to the self by virtue of being believed to be true (see my comment about phantom limb sensation). Your actions would be informed by your sensation of hunger even if it is not "objectively" true...and you would seek to satisfy the desire to eliminate the sensation of hunger.
TP:
That is a pretty good argument on incorrigible knowledge. I'll have to ponder that some more.
INTERLOCUTOR:
//If we can't unify around the same reality, then we are bound to have social issues.//
But we DO have social issues (at least here in the USA). Sadly, it is (in my opinion) largely influenced by people who confuse belief with knowledge. They allege to KNOW their God is real and (of course) holds the same conservative views they hold. And since God is an authority that has a desired state of affairs (which always matches their desired state of affairs), they feel justified using ANY means to actualize their (I mean "God's") goals for society. They "know" they are instruments for their God's will (rather than the truth...that it is merely their own).
TP:
Oh, I totally agree on dogmatism being unhealthy for society. But in my perspective, their "knowledge" isn't justified. I feel like agnosticism pushes epistemology too close to epistemic nihilism. I think getting society to be able to measure truth is more valuable than getting them to give up on truth. But for the dogmatic, agnosticism is a good first step.
INTERLOCUTOR:
I refer to myself as an agnostic atheist, which is the most rational position to hold in my view.