All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 19, 2007 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
31:16
607 Agnosticism Part 4
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Steph, hope you're doing well.
It's noon on the 19th of January.
Actually, it was 2 o'clock.
19th of January, 2006.
And we continue with the great challenge we call Agnosticism.
And I thought that it might be worth having a...
A chitchat about some posts that a user has put up.
And this could be me being intolerant, and it could be somebody being nobly stubborn in the right course, or it could be something else, and I'm certainly willing to entertain these possibilities.
I will read the posts, and then I will mention my thoughts about them in this realm of agnosticism, and you can let me know what you think.
First one, he says, I feel that nothing new was said that alters my mind, and that absolute atheism is still a leap of faith.
Steph, in discussing agnosticism, seems to veer off into pointing out the irrationality of theism.
With which I am in agreement with him.
It's proclaiming atheism with absolute certainty that I find a problem.
To be honest, I have no real problem in having a small corner of the unknown in my mind and think it is healthy and, for me at least, honest.
And of course for that he doesn't mean for me at least.
It is that I have not seen a logical assertion of the truth of absolute atheism or why it is needed.
And then I mentioned, uh, Steph, I would not be able to say If you are just willing your way to the top of the mountain, because he said, well, atheism, you're just willing your way to the top of the mountain, as I talked about in 604.
He says, all I know is that I don't feel that I'm on top of the mountain.
I am not interested in trying to prove any moral superiority.
I really don't think so.
If I protest too much, I would be glad of a logical correction.
I feel that I am just being honest.
If anyone read my first posting, I was asking, although I can't expect a logical reply, but would like one to my questions.
Your statement that you feel great hostility towards those close to you philosophically, but who are not quite there yet, I find sad.
I would rather accept what may be an illogical position of atheists, a position that at present I don't see, would affect greatly the striving for freedom, but rather than end up being in a Monty Python-like sketch from the life of Brian, infighting, now we are the People's Liberation Front splitters, Although, as I said above, I wonder what might be the psychological and possible political consequences of the differing positions, be it atheism or agnosticism.
Might psychologically a reaction formation be responsible for a position of atheism or agnosticism?
Is one more likely to become an absolute atheist?
If raised in a religious family or a society, or equally be unable to give up the possibility of a deity if raised within the same religious family or society.
Although I was raised within a very coercive family, in other ways religion was not present.
I was very lucky in that respect.
Well, a very great and well-written and intelligently put forward post.
I certainly appreciate it.
And I also was raised without religion other than some minor stuff when I was in boarding school when I was very young.
So, Although, you know, we both come from coercive families.
One aspect of the coercion that was not present was religion.
And for that, I suppose that I am also grateful.
But... I guess...
I need a couple of swings to make sense of where it is that I'm coming from, and I'm sure that I could have been more clear in the past.
I will try to be more clear in the present, and if not clear enough in the present, more clear in the future.
But I think it's well worth going over this stuff again, maybe from a different angle.
I'll take a different approach. Because the...
Number of times that atheism, not weak atheism, like, well, there's no proof of an existence of God, so it's a moot point until there's more information, blah, blah, blah, that sort of weak atheism.
A strong atheism is there is no God.
And the number of times that I've heard strong atheism equated with religion is more than I would care to count, slightly more than the number of hairs on my head when I haven't shaved.
So, I've heard very often, and this doesn't mean that it's wrong, it may mean that it's right.
I've heard very often people say, well, dogmatic atheism is exactly the same as religion.
It's a leap of faith. You're claiming to know something about which you cannot possibly know, which is all the conceivable possible knowledge in the universe.
And to go out on a limb is to make as absurd a statement, to say that God does not exist, or to make as absurd a statement as saying God does exist.
Both are leaps of faith unsupported by evidence.
I think I sort of understand that.
And so people feel that they don't want to enter a closed little closet of dogmatism.
An ideology and be anti-God and then they start casting about for psychological explanations as to why somebody would be a strong atheist.
Maybe they were beaten with a big sack of gods when they were younger.
Who knows? But it's probably something rather untoward psychologically.
And that could be the case.
I mean, I'm always open to the argument that my arguments are Erroneous, and also that, if they are erroneous, that there's a psychological explanation as to why I think that they're not, and that's great.
The first thing you do have to do, though, is to prove the argument's erroneous.
You can't make the leap to psychological explanations and name-calling, like dogmatism and so on.
And, you know, I'm just sort of pointing this out.
I feel quite friendly towards this fellow.
You kind of have to prove the argument's wrong first.
And then you can start talking about somebody being dogmatic, or somebody taking a leap of faith, or somebody being intellectually dishonest, or somebody being, you know, ideological, or somebody being, like, ridiculous Marxist revolutionaries in a comedy, or I guess these were religious revolutionaries in a comedy.
There's an enormous amount of derogatory stuff in the post, and I have no problem with that.
It's not like I'm always taking the hyper-elevated high road when it comes to intellectual opposition.
But I just sort of wanted to point out that there's not actually any...
Argument, right? There's no content.
I've put endless windy bags of podcasts out into the stratosphere, and articles, and you can just find tons of stuff.
And not just me, of course, but...
And I've done a whole introduction to philosophy, dealing with all of the logical proofs around God and gods and things like that.
And, I mean, it's a lot easier, fundamentally, it's a lot easier, rather than analyzing someone's argument and finding the logical flaws, it's a lot easier to just try.
And I really do get the sense that this guy is a decent and good and smart guy, and I like him.
But I'm totally aware that he's trying on my insecurity, right?
He's trying on my insecurity.
Because he's not actually putting forward a counter-argument.
He's just saying, well, I, you know, me, I find it more intellectually honest to leave some curiosity in the world, and I don't think it's good to hate people who are just close to your position.
I find that sad. And, uh...
It's a parody of splitters, and I like to have curiosity, and this and that and the other, and maybe it's a reaction formation on your part, Steph, and so on.
And that's all very interesting and quite fascinating, but unfortunately it doesn't have any intellectual content.
And so what he's trying, and I kind of respect the openness of it.
I really do. It's quite pleasurable.
He's trying to see if I'm going to say, no, no, no, no, don't think of me as dogmatic.
Don't think of me as, like, I want to be intellectually honest, too.
Don't think of me as dogmatic.
Heavens no. Right?
So he's throwing the labels to see if they're going to stick.
And, you know, it's worth a shot, I guess.
I mean, there's no particular issue with people trying that on.
So, I just want to sort of point out that I'm pretty aware when people don't actually respond to the intellectual content of what I'm doing, right?
So... So when he said, I think you're just willing your way to the top and you're not climbing the mountain, you said in an earlier post, you're just willing your way to the top of the mountain and not climbing, right?
And I said, geez, you know, after 600 podcasts and dozens of articles, And call-in shows, and 20 years of preparing, I think it could be said that I've done some frickin' climbing.
I'm not just willing my way to the top of the mountain.
I think that the Introduction to Philosophy series, whatever you think of it in terms of its excitement and spontaneity, is a pretty sequenced and rigorous way to go about establishing truth.
I don't think that that could be called just willing my way to whatever, whatever, right?
But when you are unsettled by somebody's argument, which I'm fully aware that strong atheism upsets a lot of people for reasons that I've already talked about.
So you can either dig into the arguments and find logical flaws in them, which It's hard work and may not work, may not succeed, right?
And once you do that, then if you don't find any logical flaws in the argument, then you have to accept the conclusions.
And people don't like to go down that road.
People really don't like to go down that road, and I can understand why.
Because once you go down that road, you're kind of bound by the conclusions.
If you say, well, I think Steph's atheism, strong atheism, is a bunch of nonsense.
So... I'm going to...
but logic decides.
So I'm going to examine Steph's arguments and pick them apart one by one and have that intricate balletic dance and debate.
Wonderful stuff. But then you're kind of bound to the conclusion, right?
So if you don't find logical flaws in the argument, then you've got to give up your agnosticism or your weak atheism.
I mean, it's the rules.
It's not my rules. It's just the rules.
If you say, you know, you and I have a road race, and we slap on our sprinters, and we tear off down the tarmac, and I come in one second ahead of you, you can't really then turn around and say, well, yeah, but it was the slowest person who was going to win, right? I mean, that would be rather silly, right?
So, if you decide to start digging into the logic of stuff, well, then you're...
You're exposed to the conclusions, right?
And you have that sort of challenge. If, on the other hand, you just throw vague aspersions at someone and watch them squirm and become defensive or watch them get angry or something like that, then you're kind of off the hook.
You don't have to confront yourself in that manner.
So, all that having been said, and with, again, great affection for the shot.
It was a good shot. It really was a good shot.
It really was a wonderful...
I mean, the Monty Python thing was genius.
It really was. I really do appreciate that.
So... The question around strong atheism versus agnosticism or weak atheism is not about closing off the possibilities of curiosity.
It's not about closing off the possibilities of curiosity.
In fact, you can't have curiosity without a standard of truth.
You can't really be curious about rank fantasy.
Because there's no truth or falsehood in rank fantasy.
So if I say, I just came back from Middle-earth and rode a wyvern over a red dragon, what's there to be curious about?
It's just a nonsense story.
And if I think that it's true, it doesn't matter.
There's still nothing to be curious about.
Curiosity really requires science and rationality.
Because that way curiosity gets you somewhere.
It gets you somewhere.
So, I think that saying that Self-contradictory entities do not exist, is not the opposite of curiosity, it is actually the basis of curiosity.
Not that statement, but the methodology behind it.
Which is to say that reason and evidence trump self-contradictory fantasy and imagination when it comes to establishing what is true, or true as described as fidelity to reality, or reason.
Well, consistent would be fidelity to reason, and true would be fidelity to empirical reality.
But if you don't have any standards for truth or falsehood, curiosity is pointless and it's impossible.
Just try talking to a mystic.
You will find yourself getting extraordinary.
I mean, assuming you're not already a crazy mystic.
Just try it. I mean, just sit there and listen to somebody drone on and on about numerology and about how they talk to their cats, spirits and this and that and the other.
Just sit there. You will find yourself getting so intolerably bored because it's such a one-sided conversation.
You can't meet people in the realm of fantasy.
There's no human connection in the realm of fantasy, in the realm of theology, in the realm of religion, in the realm of superstition.
So, because of how you correct somebody.
How do you correct somebody?
Or how do they correct you?
Where do you meet? What standards do you have in common?
It's like two gas particles rubbing past each other at a fair distance, I guess.
So, I don't think that it's fair to say that requiring a rational and empirical standard of truth is somehow the opposite of curiosity.
I could go into that in greater detail, but I just don't want to put that forward as a maybe.
Now, The assertion of consciousness without form, of existence without energy, of infinite consciousness with neither birth nor death, of all of these kinds of things, It really is the most mutant transposition and anthropomorphism imposed upon the universe that you could imagine.
It's just horrible, horrible stuff, as far as, you know, that goes, right?
At least a dragon, you're just, you're crossing a bird with a lizard and making it big, right?
I mean, there's some basic reality to it, but in the realm of deities, you're simply taking The attributes of consciousness extending them to infinity and inverting them from their material form completely, and extending them through time to infinity.
Human life is finite, human consciousness is finite, and human consciousness requires material form and energy.
Those are the three basics.
And they're not even extended in the realm of most modern gods, right?
I mean, Yahweh and all this.
At least Zeus, you know, seemed to take dumps and want to rape people fairly constantly.
So he was like a human being writ large.
But the Old Testament gods that have sprung forth are defined as...
You just take the attributes of humanity and reverse them completely.
Right? So...
Human beings are finite and God is infinite.
It's the opposite. The consciousness, the lifespan is finite.
God's consciousness and lifespan is infinite.
Human beings must be created.
God does not have to be created.
Human beings, consciousness exists as an effect of matter and energy.
God is...
It does not require any manifestation of energy or matter.
In fact, it's quite the opposite.
So, the simple imagining of the opposite characteristics of that which exists is pretty significant.
It's not an act of imagination.
God is not an act of imagination.
God is an act of negation.
God is an act of negation.
God is a saying that God exists.
It's like an architect saying, you know, pay me ten million dollars and I'll build you a building that isn't there.
Or build you a building that has all the opposite characteristics of any building that would be there.
And it really is not...
An absence or a hostility towards creativity or imagination or any curiosity or any of these things that requires one to be, if you want to be logically consistent, a strong atheist.
And strong atheist only exists as a term because there's theism, right?
Otherwise it would just be rationalist and you would no more be a strong atheist than you would be, you know, highly anti-leprechaunist.
Good name for a band. And, so, If you want to have standards of truth, then you have to reject mere contradictory assertions of truth.
You can't have a science of mathematics if people say you can have mathematics that is the opposite of numbers.
How would you feel about that?
I've invented this new mathematics.
What is it? It's the opposite of numbers.
Oh, no, wait, wait! I've invented a new form of physics.
It's the opposite of matter and energy.
Well, what is the opposite of matter and energy?
Nobody knows. What is the avoid?
Well, I don't know.
You can't really say, because whatever you define, it's the opposite of that, too.
Because it's an oppositional concept.
It's simply that which is not.
That which is anti. Or, I've invented a new form of literature.
Oh, really? What's this new form of literature like?
Well, it's the opposite of literature.
I mean, really, that's what it comes down to.
When you say God exists, I'm not saying that you, the gentleman who posted this stuff, when you say God exists, you're not saying...
You're not saying 2 plus 2 is 4, obviously.
You're not even saying that 2 plus 2...
It's five. Because that would simply be an error.
But, you know, a logically consistent error in terms of the materials that you're using, the methodology that you're using.
You're at least adding two numbers together and getting another number.
That number just happens to be incorrect.
But when you say God exists, you're saying that numbers exist, and the opposite of numbers exists simultaneously.
Because you're saying, obviously, human life exists, because you're saying God exists, You believe in some sort of logical consistency, in that you're not saying Slate Bartfast, you're saying God exists, right?
Putting the concepts together.
But you're not identifying any value characteristic of reality, any logical truth.
It's simply the opposite of what is.
And oppositional concepts are meaningless.
I mean, abstract, universal oppositional concepts.
I've got a new form of tree I want to show you.
Where is it? Well, it's the opposite of a tree.
So you've got a new form of tree that is the opposite of a tree.
What the hell does that mean?
Nobody knows. People seem to pay good money hearing parables about it.
So you say, God exists. Well, what's God defined as?
That which cannot be measured, that which has no characteristics that conform with any other known characteristics, in fact, are just the complete opposite.
Consciousness without matter, life without birth or death, existence without any form of tangibility.
Well, God is really defined as the opposite of existence.
And certainly God is defined as the opposite of conscious existence, which is, you know, born and dies and finite, requires matter and so on.
So, when somebody says that God exists, what they're actually saying is non-existence exists.
The opposite of existence exists.
Which is also what they're saying when they say the state is good.
The state is that which uses violence to achieve its ends, which is evil.
The evil is good, is what people say when they say the state is good.
But when you look at the phrase God exists, it is exactly the same as saying that which is the opposite of existence exists.
But you can't have both.
You can't have the opposite of existence existing simultaneously with existence.
I'm sorry to be so convoluted, but it really is...
If you say a tree is defined as the opposite of a tree, and you do it while pointing at a tree, you say, that tree, I'm going to define that tree as the opposite of that tree.
Could you understand that that is a completely nonsensical and ridiculous thing to say?
It's insane! So, saying that God exists when existence is defined is that which has a form or energy, material, whatever, right?
It has to have some criteria for existence.
And you say, well, what is the criteria of God?
Well, God is that which cannot be God is that which has no tangible or material existence.
God is consciousness without birth or death.
God is consciousness without matter or energy.
God is consciousness that is infinite.
God is outside of time.
God is outside of reality.
God is this.
Well, all of that is simply the same as saying it doesn't exist.
So, when people say to me, well, as a strong atheist, you're being dogmatic, well, that's fine.
But then I'd like them to go and have an argument with a biologist and say, see that zebra?
That zebra is the opposite of a zebra.
I'm defining that zebra as the opposite of a zebra.
Well, you can only define it with reference to a zebra, but if you define it as an opposite, it's a self-detonating principle.
God, logically parsed out, is that which does not exist.
So when you say God exists, or God could exist, right, then you're saying that which does not exist could exist.
Not in the future, but now.
That which does not exist might exist.
Now, can you imagine what kind of state biology would be in if a biologist said, well, sure, I'm going to define this thing as a zebra, but you can define it as the exact opposite of a zebra.
Where would biology and science be if these were acceptable definitions?
They would be nowhere. They would be a bunch of futile, wastoid arguments about all of the basics, and nobody would ever be able to make any progress.
Much like, ooh, look, philosophy!
So, yeah, that's why I'm passionate about it.
If I say to you, 2 plus 2 equals the opposite of numbers, and you say, well, can you define me the opposite of numbers?
It's like, well, everything that numbers are, this is not the opposed to.
This is not that. Well, how am I advancing the science of mathematics?
It doesn't really make any sense.
Math can't even advance if people accept that 2 plus 2 is 4, and the statement God exists has nothing to do with that.
If you say God exists, and God is really big and round, and it's detectable through x-rays, well, at least you've put a hypothesis forward.
But if you say God exists, and then you break down the definition of God, and it turns out to be the exact opposite of that which exists, then that which does not exist, exists perpetually.
It's a meaningless statement.
In fact, it's an anti-knowledge statement.
It's worse than meaningless. It's anti-matter to the solid material of mind.
So I hope that this sort of helps.
I mean, to get over this barrier, this dead, anti-life corpse of God, is so essential, in my opinion, to getting forward, moving philosophy forward as a distant thing.
And I know it sounds dogmatic, but it's not.
If you have a standard for truth, and you have a standard of science, and you have a standard of rationality, then everything which is put forward is the complete opposite of that, that is a self-detonating, self-contradictory, insane statement.
And I'm not calling the person who posts or agnostics insane by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm just saying that when you break down the statement that we're talking about here, logically, about gods and goblins and so on, Nobody's...
It doesn't make any sense, fundamentally.
It's anti-knowledge. And that's why you can't let it stand.
A biologist can't say, yeah, you could define a zebra as a zebra, or you could define it as the opposite of a zebra.
What kind of sense would that make?
It would mean that there's no such thing as biology.
Biology is whatever the hell you want it to be.
It doesn't make up anything. Zebras are road signs, mirages, the northern lights, and astrology.
Okay, let's go with that.
Well, there's no science then.
There's no curiosity. It's just a bunch of random waffling.
Existence is material form.
Logical consistency is non-contradictory identification of information.
Oh, but if you believe that something could exist that's the opposite of all of that, that's fine too.
You know, a plant has roots in the ground and reaches to the sky, processes photosynthesis and chlorophyll and so on.
Whatever. I don't know what the hell the technical definition of a plant is.
But if you say it's that, and it's also the dream of a fictional character, or in the Sort of metaphor or the framework that we're using.
If you say a plant is this, but a plant is also the exact opposite of a plant, and the botanist or biologist says, yeah, that's fine.
It's possible. Well, no, it's not.
No, it's really not.
It's really, really not possible.
Up cannot be down simultaneously.
Something cannot have both mass and energy and be the opposite of mass and energy simultaneously.
You can't square the circle.
I mean, these things are pretty basic.
And I totally understand why people don't like this stuff.
I totally, totally understand why people don't like this stuff.
Because it's, you know, it takes philosophy a little bit out of the...
Late night dorm room bullshit sessions and a little bit into actually having to stand for something in your real life.
And I'm not saying that this guy hasn't stood for something in his real life and so on.
I'm just talking about the logical consequences of accepting the basic facts of reality.
So, yeah, I hate having to waste time on debating about agnosticism and religion, but I can clearly see, it's one of the most popular threads on the board, I can clearly see that it's an essential topic for many people.
And fantastic, then we'll talk about it.
But the moment that somebody can tell me how existence and the opposite of existence can exist simultaneously, without their head exploding, I will be more than happy to discuss the concepts of God and how God may exist.
And this other dimension nonsense, please!
I mean, to me, this is just cowardice.
And again, I'm not saying that I hate these people, or they're bad people, or they're cowards, because, you know, I wasn't a coward before I started really thinking about this stuff.
I just didn't know. I just didn't know.
So, this is no insult to the people who are agnostics or anything like that.
It's just, you don't know. That's okay.
That's okay. I didn't know for many years, and there's tons of things that I don't know now that I'll know in the future.
It's a journey.
So, there's no massive disrespect to me.
And I don't hate people who are close to my opinions.
Again, this is just another kind of jab, right?
It's just a portrait of an intolerant, quote, pseudo-thinker, right?
A cult leader or whatever. I don't hate people who are close to my beliefs but not my beliefs.
I hate people who turn against the truth.
I hate people who attack the truth and undermine the confidence of those who are seeking truth.
And I don't count this gentleman's psychological undermining in this category at all.
But, you know, there's a choice that we make.
We're for the truth or we're against the truth.
And people who are, you know, cult-based and retarded or raised in some horrible anti-rational society have, for me at least, all the forgiveness and tolerance in the world.
But when people come storming in and tell me that I'm wrong based on this, that, or the other reason, and then I point out the irrationality in their thinking, and then they just attack me or run away, yeah, those people I have a problem with because they know better.
Right. Those people, and I'm not saying this guy's one of those people, those people I have a problem with, because they damn well know better.
And so, I hope that this has been helpful in at least explicating why it is that I continue to pound away at this non-existent corpse of God.
It is an essential thing for us to understand.
A philosophy is to move beyond the Stone Age.
▲
Export Selection