All Episodes
Previous Next
June 1, 2010 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
56:11
1673 Agnosticism Take 666 - A Listener Composition

A listener challenges my approach to agnostiticism, and gets charged by a unicorn.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello? Oh, hey Ash, how's it going?
Pretty well, how are you?
Just great, thank you.
Ah, yes. Yeah, my internet's pretty bad at the moment, so I apologise if I drop out.
No worries. Okay, do you know the thread I was referring to, the agnosticism thread that's on the boards at the moment?
I have not read it in great detail, but I've looked at the last few posts.
Okay, but maybe that was the source of my frustration then.
Excellent. Do you want me to read what I was going to post and see what you think of it?
Well, perhaps just in case we end up releasing this, you could give the context for people who might not be aware of the thread.
Okay, sure thing.
Well, somebody posted originally some questions, I think, relating to your podcast 1671, referring to the agnosticism stuff.
There was, I thought, a pretty decent conversation that happened, and the original poster seemed to be quite satisfied at the end of it.
And then it continued...
A little bit longer onto the second page where you made a post and I got a bit frustrated with that post but what you've just told me that you didn't read the whole thread would probably explain why and the reason was that I made quite a rather long post on the previous page about agnosticism and how I thought That the categorization you use while applying to some agnostics doesn't apply to all of them.
And then with your post, you kind of reiterated your original definition without any reference to what I said, and that left me a little bit frustrated.
And I totally understand that, and I'm sorry that I missed your post.
Okay, well, that does explain it a bit.
If you didn't read through the whole thread.
So it's not a huge issue.
Well, why don't you talk about the point that you'd made and make sure that, if you have time, just make sure that I understand it.
Okay. I think the definition you use for agnosticism is of a specific type of agnosticism, but it doesn't apply to agnosticism in general.
And I think that could be a problem because people who do identify themselves as agnostic but do not fit into that particular definition have maybe some judgments made about their position that might not be quite just.
All right. And where is the definition of agnosticism that I'm missing, just to make sure that I understand it?
As a general definition, I believe the definition is someone who, I can perhaps look it up because Wikipedia can do a pretty good job on it, but of course there's all different types of agnosticism, but the common characteristic is, I believe, the claim to knowledge about the existence of a deity.
Whereas, obviously, theism and atheism are claims to knowledge.
I'm not sure that atheism is exactly a claim to knowledge.
Well, it's saying gods don't exist, right?
Well, I don't think it's saying that gods don't exist anymore than you can have in someone who's anti-leprechaun or anti-unicorn.
I think what it's saying is that the definition of existence requires, at the very first thing, logical consistency in the entity being described, and in the second part, ideally, And that's necessary, though not necessarily sufficient, right?
I could describe some imaginary being with biological characteristics that were not self-contradictory, you know, like a silicon-based life form instead of a carbon-based life form.
I could describe that... And I think only a fool would say there's no possible way that a silicon-based lifeform could exist.
I mean, if it's biologically possible, then you could say that somewhere out there, there may be a silicon-based lifeform, because the idea is not self-contradictory.
And so I think from that standpoint, an atheist or a rationalist or a philosopher, let's say, is going to say, well, sure, if the concept is not self-contradictory, then the possibility of existence remains open.
It's not proof of something's existence, but it is not axiomatic disproof of something's existence.
And so I think from that standpoint, there is that aspect.
And that seems to be where the agnostics kind of want to elbow their way into by pretending that gods are somewhere along the lines of a silicon-based life form.
But that's not true. Gods are innately and inherently self-contradictory entities.
And so, I think an atheist is wise in saying, well, sure, there could be a silicon-based life form out there or intelligent life somewhere out there in the universe, for sure, why not?
But on the other hand, I think that it is a perversion of the concept of existence and knowledge to say that we have to scour the universe looking for square circles to find that they don't exist, because a square circle is an innately contradictory concept, as is a god, as is a leprechaun and a unicorn and a ghost and a goblin and all these kinds of things.
And so that's where I put, I think, that agnostics are constantly trying to sneak gods into this idea of silicon-based lifeforms or intelligent lifeforms other than humanity.
And that's, I mean, the guy just did that in the thread, right?
So he said, look, if I say I have a million dollars, you don't have any proof, but you don't have any disproof.
And as I pointed out, as I, you know, get increasingly weary of pointing out, not to you, of course, but to people who are agnostics, Having a million dollars is not a self-contradictory proposition.
So it's certainly possible, though it's not proven.
But self-contradictory entities, or entities that are defined as simultaneous to non-existence, right?
So what happens with agnostics is they will create a realm called the opposite of existence and say gods could exist there.
In other words, that gods could exist in the opposite of existence, i.e., outside of the universe, outside of time, outside of reality, with no possible footprint in this universe and with self-contradictory definitions.
But that is to say that existence equals non-existence.
All they're doing is defining a realm called non-existence and say gods could exist there.
Which is logically insane, if you don't mind me putting it that bluntly.
And I don't mean that with regards to an agnostic who is new to philosophy, of course, right?
I mean, I think that makes perfect sense to be patient and explain slowly that agnosticism is not valid with reference to gods, but it is perfectly valid with reference to, you know, could there be Entities out there in the universe that we've never even imagined that exist.
Well, of course, but we do know that they're not going to be self-contradictory entities because that's not possible in the realm of existence.
And we also know that if they have no physical footprint or energy footprint in the universe and they are self-contradictory, that that's the very definition of non-existence.
So that's sort of where I'm coming from.
And if I've missed the definition of agnosticism, I'm certainly happy to be corrected.
Oh, and I absolutely Absolutely agree with that.
Completely share your frustration with these people who come in making these kinds of claims.
I mean, it's kind of, you know, that's kind of Kantian in a metaphysical sense.
It's just kind of, you know, a transcendental realm that we can't know anything about, but we can still say something, you know, or whatever.
It's complete nonsense. But what I was saying, trying to say is agnosticism, that is a very common type of agnosticism, but agnosticism in general doesn't require that.
It's just I'm saying that the truth value of the claim that some data exists or not is unknown to them.
So there is the type that you mentioned, the kind of new people who just haven't kind of thought about it.
Thought about it at all and haven't reached a conclusion yet, but there's also another type of agnosticism at the other end of the spectrum, whereas most deities that opposed all the gods and stuff are self-contradictory, but that's when people start adding features to them like omnipotence and omniscience and all these kinds of things.
I mean, I think it's...
I think there are concepts of deities that, although we would both agree that they don't exist, they are described in a way that they're not self-contradictory, and some people would call themselves agnostics because they have no proof that it doesn't exist, although they are still atheists in that they do not believe that the particular thing exists.
Does that make any sense? I think it does, and I appreciate that clarification.
The first question that pops into my head is, I personally have never heard of a definition of a god that does not involve some element of magic or supernaturalism or some self-contradictory property.
And so to me, if somebody defines a god as, I don't know, a very intelligent being that can fly, well, yeah, there could be really, really bright birds out there on the moons of Jupiter or something.
But that would not be a god in any way that is really understood by the use of the term god.
I mean, to me, if you define a god as...
A potential entity or being in the universe that does not possess self-contradictory attributes, then, to me, that's no longer a god, that's just a possible alien, if that makes any sense.
Sure, yeah, I do think that makes sense.
So, are you saying that there would be no conception of a deity at all that would not be self-contradictory?
Well, I think that you wouldn't call it a deity then.
I mean, I have no doubt that there are beings out there in the universe that are vastly intelligent, vastly more intelligent than we are, and may be able to do some seriously trippy things like time travel on a whim or pop around the universe using wormholes and all this kind of crazy stuff.
That's certainly possible out there.
But they would be living entities that would have evolved, that would not have existed prior to the universe, that do not exist outside of time, do not exist outside of the universe.
They can just do some really wild stuff, you know, which would be as astounding to us as, you know, watching a space shuttle launch would be to a Cro-Manion man or something even further back, like a Neanderthal.
And so I have no doubt that there are astonishingly intelligent beings with incredible attributes out there, but they're just really, really advanced life forms.
They're not gods.
Because gods...
It must exist prior to the universe in general, because they're considered eternal, and we know that the universe is not eternal.
So, gods have to be eternal.
Gods have to have consciousness without physical matter, and consciousness is, in effect, a physical matter, not something like gravity is an effect of mass.
Consciousness is an effect of the brain.
And so these are all self-contradictory entities.
Like if you said, my god is gravity, which exists independent of mass and exists before the universe and outside of time, that is a self-contradictory notion, because gravity is an effect of mass.
And so I've not heard of a definition of a god that escapes the problem of contradiction, self-contradiction.
But if I did, then to me that would no longer be a god, but rather just a potential being with really cool superpowers, so to speak.
Okay, that makes a lot of sense.
I mean, I'm reasonably happy with that definition, I think.
Sorry to interrupt, but if you do find the definition of a God that is not self-contradictory, But still has the characteristics of a god.
I would be quite fascinated to read it.
And I'm not saying go hunt for it, because I think it's a beast that doesn't exist.
I think we'll sooner find god than that definition.
But if you do come across one, I know you're studying this stuff.
If you do come across a definition, I would be absolutely fascinated to read it.
And I hope that you would consider posting it.
I'm sure I would. I mean, if I was going to think of something, not positing something that You know, I think is likely to exist or something that may be possible or that an agnostic could say is, you know, we don't know how the universe is created and it may be possible that it was some, you know, some entity that had some kind of intelligence that did it or something like that.
Obviously, it doesn't provide any support for it, but I don't think that would necessarily be self-contradictory, although you may disagree on that.
Well, I have no problem with people coming up with, you know, we could be shit from the ass of an infinite turtle.
You know, anything's possible when it comes to the creation of the universe.
It could be that the universe was created from a prior universe where an incredibly intelligent or able race of beings was able to create a new universe or who knows, right?
That's all certainly possible.
But again, that has nothing to do with what is called a god.
Because maybe there was some magical machine or some amazingly technologically advanced machine that they did to create some new universe.
But again, that would not be the characteristics of a deity.
In other words, those hyper-intelligent and advanced beings would be very unlikely to have popped into existence out of nowhere or to have been eternal.
Because eternal and life is not something that goes hand in hand.
Now, again, you could say, well, if they find some way to replace their bodies or transfer their brains to machines and replace those machines, you could get something that is eternal.
But certainly life cannot start out eternal, because if life is eternal, then it doesn't die, it doesn't reproduce, there's no gene mutations, there's no possibility of advancing, right?
I mean, if the If the original single-celled life forms of the planet Never died then there would have been no evolution and therefore no intelligence would ever have so life has to start out Dying and and reproducing and having those mutations which allows for evolution and if it then comes you know at some point becomes eternal through some Incomprehensible technology then that's still not the same as a God because it's still I've never heard of a God that evolves from a single-celled life form God is sort of an eternal and omnipotent consciousness that exists outside of time and And so if the universe was created by some very intelligent beings,
those beings themselves would not have the characteristics of gods because they would have had to have evolved from somewhere.
Okay, I think that's fair enough.
I mean, I think my natural inclination, if I was to find out that the universe was created by some intelligent life form, I'd probably consider them to be in the deity category, but I can see how Well, sorry, but if that's the case, there would have to be some footprint, some detectable methodology for discovering these beings, right?
I mean, they would have to leave some...
To make any truth claim about it, absolutely.
Right, right. So there would have to be...
And of course, to know that they were intelligent, we would have to either decipher their language, or we would have to communicate with them directly, or we'd have to find some indication of intelligence prior to the beginning of the universe.
And I... I mean, I consider that unlikely, but of course, you know, unlikely doesn't mean impossible.
But there would have to be some trace element prior to the universe.
There would have to be something... I can't imagine...
Since matter seems to have come into existence, I can't imagine that we would find anything before the universe because there is no matter, so there would be no writing.
If those beings came with us, if through the universe and could describe how they created it, then that would not be a deity.
That would just be a really intelligent and cool group of interstellar traveling beings.
But we're certainly not going to find, I don't think, Hieroglyphics from before the universe, because there was no matter before the universe, and so there couldn't be.
So again, if we find something that is material, then by definition it won't be a deity, it would just be something else.
And if we don't find anything material, then that is synonymous with non-existence.
Right. I mean, I'm pretty happy with that.
And I mean, yeah, I guess the main point I was trying to make is...
I mean, I understand where you're coming from kind of railing against this thing.
Because, I mean, there's been a lot of kind of agnostics coming on the board with these kinds of arguments or whatever.
And I do think they're absolute nonsense.
But I'm just trying to say that...
Not all agnostics have that same approach or that same belief or things like that.
Some agnostics are simply saying, you know, I don't know, basically.
I don't think the same criticisms can be levelled against them justly.
Well, I think that they can.
Because if somebody's saying, I don't know, that is a perfectly valid approach to take about things that are not logically self-contradictory and accord with the definitions of existence.
Of course, right? Like the silicon-based life forms.
But if people say, I don't know, whether self-contradictory entities that leave no footprint in reality exist or not, then what they're saying is that...
Non-existence is the same, potentially, as existence, and that is not a logically consistent position.
In other words, if it's supernatural, it doesn't exist.
If it's not supernatural, it's not a god.
Okay, I'm just thinking at the moment.
Oh yeah, please take your time.
I mean, this is my position. I could be completely wrong, but that's the only stuff that I can accept logically.
But again, that doesn't mean there's some argument I have to look at.
I mean, you have kind of convinced me of the definition of all deities would have to fall into that self-contradictory category.
That's something that I didn't I really know before I was just more aware of the particular instances of gods that are put forward, but that did clear it up.
But I still don't think it is all agnostics into that same group.
I don't think saying I don't know is the same as putting forward an argument that it could be possible.
Do you know what I mean there?
Well, let's try another run at it, and I appreciate your skepticism, and it certainly may be valid, but let's try one more run at it.
So, if I define a unicorn as a horse with a horn on its head, right, then I think clearly you can't say no such thing exists in the universe, right?
Because there could very well be horses with horns on their head.
The point I was trying to make is Sure, but I'm talking about not the ones that say it could exist or it couldn't exist, the ones that are saying, I don't know.
Right. And look, I don't know whether a horse with a horn exists in the universe.
I don't know. I'm perfectly comfortable saying...
I certainly can't say that it doesn't exist.
I mean, the only way you could say that a horse with a horn on its head doesn't exist is if you could simultaneously examine every place in the universe and see that it wasn't there, which is impossible because you'd have to travel too quickly, right?
I mean, to even traverse the universe would give it ample time to evolve from a nothing, right?
Right. So, if a unicorn is defined as a horse with a horn on its head, then it's not supernatural, right?
It's not magic, right?
It's just a horse with a horn on its head.
And then you can't say it doesn't exist.
I mean, you can, but you're wrong.
You can't say that with certainty.
You can't say it does exist, so we can be agnostic on whether unicorns, i.e.
horses with horns on their heads, we can be agnostic about whether they exist or not, right?
I think we can agree on that, right?
Yeah, sure. But if I say that a unicorn is a magical being that can fly in an Earth-like atmosphere without wings and can swim and fly at the same time, and I don't even know what the definition of a unicorn is exactly, but if it was some magical thing, then clearly we're starting to ascribe properties that can't exist in reality.
You can't fly in an Earth-like atmosphere without some method of propulsion, without being lighter than air.
So if I said, well, they could just fly by thinking about it, well, that wouldn't be the case.
If I said that they could be in the air and in the water at the same time, then that would clearly be impossible.
If I said that unicorns lived forever, then that violates the need for evolution and it violates biological imperatives and so on.
And so once I start to ascribe magical or impossible qualities to that unicorn, then I'm moving it out of the realm of agnosticism and into the realm of impossibility.
And then we are safe to say such a being cannot exist.
Sure.
I mean, I agree with that, but I'll just like ask this one more time.
So you do not say...
In this case, a difference between two people if one said, you know, I don't know if this magical creature exists and the other one saying, you know, maybe this creature could exist if such and such, you know, outside of space, outside of time, whatever.
You see no real difference between those two positions?
Can you just give me those two positions again?
I want to make sure I'm following what you're saying.
One position is saying, you know, maybe this magic unicorn does exist because, you know, it could exist outside of time or outside of space or whatever.
You know, all that stuff that you've heard a million times.
The other position is simply saying, I don't know if it exists.
Well, I think those two positions are the same, fundamentally.
Because saying it could exist is the same as saying, I don't know whether it exists or not.
Right, so the horse with the horn in its head could exist, and I don't know whether it exists or not.
I can't say yes because there's no confirmation, but I can't say no because it's biologically possible, right?
I can't, I mean, I think we can't, we can say something like this.
We can say that any being that is flammable cannot live on the surface of a sun.
I think we can understand that, right?
We're never going to find human beings or species very similar to human beings living on the surface of a sun, right?
Because that's just physically impossible.
If you're flammable and you're on the surface of the sun, you're dead, right?
Right. And so if somebody says, well, I don't know whether human beings can live on the surface of the sun, they're incorrect, right?
Right. Now, if they say, well, if in some...
Well, I don't know. Sorry, go ahead.
I don't think you can say they're incorrect.
Right. If there's something I don't know, and it's true that they don't know, then how was that being incorrect?
It might be a bit naive or a bit stupid.
You know what? That's a fantastic correction.
Yeah, you're absolutely correct.
You're totally right. And I'm absolutely wrong to make that statement with the authority that I did.
So that's a fantastic correction.
Thank you. I appreciate that. So, if somebody says that a human being, like somebody who has knowledge, who claims knowledge of biology or has knowledge of biology, says that human beings can live on the surface of the sun, then they are factually incorrect even if they believe what they say, right?
Somebody can say the world is flat.
They're factually incorrect even if they honestly believe it.
So, yes, you're absolutely right.
Somebody who says that human beings can live on the surface of the sun unaided, I mean, they're incorrect on every level.
There's no oxygen. It's too hot.
There's no compression of air to hold the body in place.
So you're right.
Sorry, that's a great correction. They're factually incorrect if they say that.
Okay, so...
I mean, I think this is where...
I draw the distinction, I think, because, you know, even 10 minutes ago, before we started this call, I didn't realize that all conceptions of deities were necessarily self-contractory.
And, I mean, that's something I'll go over after this call as well.
But, I mean, yesterday, when I was writing some of these posts out, I kind of described myself as technically I could call myself an agnostic because there are some things that I don't I make knowledge claims about, of course, all the gods, the Christian gods and all those kinds of things.
Absolutely, I make claims about those, no problem.
But there were some kind of conceptions that I didn't make any claim to know or to not know or anything.
So I don't think perhaps that was due to my ignorance of the definition of a deity that you've given me since then, but I do not think It would be fair to lump, say me, in my belief yesterday, in the same category as the people saying, you know, gods could exist outside of space, outside of time, and things like that.
I completely agree with you.
I mean, and that's why, I mean, I've always respected your...
Very impressive intelligence.
And I've always enjoyed our conversation.
So I hope that I haven't been negative or hostile towards what it is you're saying.
I don't think that you were in that same category.
And I've also never experienced that you do a kind of bait and switch that people do when talking about agnosticism.
I don't know if you remember my debate with Bill Rush about, you know, that he would describe characteristics to things that existed in other universes, right?
I mean, that to me was not an honest debate, but I've never experienced that from you.
So I hope that you experienced that.
This conversation that I really do respect, where you're coming from.
And again, if you come up with a definition of a deity that is not self-contradictory, I really would be interested in hearing it.
I can't imagine. I mean, at the very minimum, deities appear to be conceived of as eternal.
With a few, some exceptions.
I mean, there are a few gods that seem to live and die in ancient mythology.
But usually those are the minor gods, like the Jesus equivalents, who die in the real world.
But there is a master god who can't die or be killed.
Or at least that's what I remember from Dungeons& Dragons.
Yeah. The fiend folio.
But if you do come across those definitions, I would be very interested to hear them.
But everything I've ever read and heard about, which is of course not exhaustive, I've never come across the definition of a God that isn't inherently self-contradictory.
And yeah, I'm pretty much convinced of that.
So, I mean, I'm pretty happy with that definition.
But I'm just wondering, because I'm not 100% clear, what your opinion was on the distinction between saying you don't know and Making claims that there could be ways they exist.
Do you still think it's all in the same category?
Well, no. Perhaps there are separate categories.
Yeah, I do think that there are separate categories.
The I don't know is I've never thought about it, so to speak.
I don't know the answer to whether gods exist is similar to maybe me saying, I don't know how to do open heart surgery.
Because I've never studied it, right?
I don't know how to do it. And it's a recognition of my lack of knowledge.
And what I'm saying in that instance is not, there's no such thing as open heart surgery or open heart surgery is invalid.
But I simply don't know.
So to say, well, does God exist?
And someone who's never studied any philosophy or theology would say, well, I don't know.
And I think that's an honest response.
I don't know how to do advanced postgraduate mathematics.
I don't know. But that doesn't mean that those things are invalid.
I just, you know, I don't know.
And I think that's fair.
I think that's a reasonable statement.
Or, I do know, but I'm missing information.
So if the argument that I put forward is valid, which is gods are inherently self-contradictory by definition, if you didn't have that as a definition, then your position would be consistent and I think perfectly fair and valid.
If the definition I put forward is accurate, then there's been a step forward in knowledge and clarity.
And so, you know, all philosophy is a progression, right?
I was not a jerk when I was a minarchist.
I just hadn't thought things through, hadn't been exposed to particular arguments, hadn't come up with particular arguments.
So I think there is a progression.
So somebody who says, I don't know, when they lack knowledge or genuinely don't know, is really not saying anything specific about gods, though.
When somebody says, I don't know whether gods exist or not, to me what they're really saying is, I don't have a clear definition of existence and gods exist.
And once those things are made clear, then the knowledge accrues.
Somebody who says gods could exist in another universe, gods could exist in another time and place and blah, blah, blah, to me that is not nearly as honest and it's not a position that has nearly as much integrity because they've clearly examined the nature of gods and the nature of existence and they have realized that if existence is limited to the imprint of matter and energy or its effect, In this universe, then their gods do not exist.
And because they do not want to let go of the fantasy of the supernatural, they then will construct an alternate universe where their gods can go and hide.
And that, to me, is much more dishonest.
Not that the other position is dishonest, but it is a dishonest position relative.
Because they're people who've examined and have accepted and understood that their definition of God cannot...
Possibly exist within this universe.
So then rather than say, well, I now understand the definition of a god, I now understand the definition of existence, and I know what the universe is, and so sorry, bye-bye gods, shame, but that's the way it is.
What they do is they won't accept it, and so they invent another realm where they can go and hide their gods and pretend that the god still has a possibility of existence.
But they can't claim a lack of knowledge of the definition of gods or of existence, because they have created this alternate realm, which means they know that their gods can't exist.
Yeah, and, you know, as I said, I completely agree when it comes to those type of people.
But, I mean, there are some pretty well-known and pretty smart people who have admitted they take, you know, they're atheists with a technically agnostic position.
People like Richard Dawkins, even, or Bertrand Russell, and these kinds of guys.
I think that's why I'm kind of hesitant to lump all agnostics into the same group, if that makes sense.
Well, but I think that those agnostics are making the argument for the potential existence of a deity But they are defining that as a non-self-contradictory entity.
So, for instance, I mean, you know, of course, and I'll just touch on it briefly, the teapot out beyond the orbit of Jupiter, right?
So somebody says, there could be a teapot out there beyond the orbit of Jupiter, and people say, well, that's highly unlikely, but it's certainly possible, right?
And that is the argument for silicon-based life forms or horses with horns on their heads or whatever.
Because it's not a self-contradictory entity.
Yeah, there could be a teapot out there, some past civilization, you know, whatever, right?
And that's not self-contradictory.
However, I don't think that Richard Dawkins would say that there's a possibility of a seagull's feather existing on the surface of the sun.
That's why they have to put the teapot out on Jupiter, right?
If the teapot was orbiting 100 miles from the surface of the Sun...
Sorry, go ahead. I think it comes down to this definition of deity.
I think that's where the kind of issue here might lie.
Because obviously, I mean, those two guys that I just mentioned are pretty brilliant guys, but I don't think they had a conception of...
The conception of deity that was necessarily self contradictory, so I think that's probably the avenue to Sorry, I would say that they did have some sense of it, because they avoided the self-contradictory thing, right? So if they said, it's possible that there's a clay teapot orbiting 10 feet above the sun, then they clearly would not be able to sustain that as a thesis, right?
Because it would burst into flames and be destroyed instantaneously or virtually, right?
So what they did was they created a possibility for something that existed that did not have any self-contradictory.
But of course, the whole argument is that gods are self-contradictory, and that's why they can't exist.
So when they come up with their agnosticism, they come up with an entity that is not self-contradictory.
I'm not saying that that's a conscious thing, but I think that there is something that is going on that is avoidant, and I think that that would probably only come out through...
I mean, scientists and philosophers should be very, very cautious in making knowledge claims.
Of course, because knowledge claims have so often been overturned throughout history.
And you have to be really, really careful when it comes to making knowledge claims.
This is why I won't say, yeah, there could be a teapot out there beyond the orbit of Jupiter.
Of course, we all understand that the possibility is absolutely infinitesimally small.
But it's certainly within the realm of reality.
It's not self-contradictory and so on.
But we can't say that if there's not a teapot out there beyond the orbit of Jupiter, that the teapot simply exists outside of time and space.
Like, we can't then move the teapot, because then that's the saying that non-existence is the same as existence, and that makes no sense fundamentally.
And we can't say that a self-contradictory entity exists, because the very definition of existence is...
Is that objects have properties which cannot be self-contradictory.
Something cannot be both a gas and a solid at the same time.
It can't go both up and down at the same time.
You know, that kind of stuff, right?
I mean, I'm talking about material entities.
Who knows what's going on at the quantum level, but that has no particular relevance to philosophy.
But I think they did make those arguments, but they did do that switch where they suddenly come up with a non-self-contradictory entity and say, gods might exist because of this.
And I think I think they did know enough about the self-contradictory nature of deities because certainly in what I've read from Bertrand Russell and what I've read from both Hitchens and Dawkins, one of the major issues they have with deities is that they're self-contradictory entities.
Well, I think they were more talking about specific deities in those cases, although I'm not 100% sure.
But you could be right about that.
But, I mean, I didn't realize it, and I'm pretty well read on the subject, and, you know, I wasn't put up in any kind of religious upbringing or anything, so I don't think I have any particular baggage around this kind of stuff.
But, yeah, although, absolutely, I knew all the specific deities that have been described are self-contradictory.
It had never been presented to me.
I don't think that all deities may be inherently self-contradictory.
Right, right. So that the very definition of a deity is that which is self-contradictory.
And therefore, you don't need empirical proof like a square circle.
It just becomes something that destroys itself in terms of definition, right?
Right. And, you know, I mean, I'd never heard that before, this call.
So, I mean, that's been useful for me, but...
That's also why I think there are maybe some agnostics that don't deserve the same treatment as the other ones because I'm sure there's many agnostics out there that aren't aware of the fact that deities are inherently self-contradictory in all cases or whatever.
Right, right. Okay, well then, I hope you don't mind.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.
Go ahead. I mean, does that make sense?
I mean, I don't think...
Agnostics should all be lumped into that kind of slimy, you know, moving the goalpost type thing.
Well, they may exist like this and they may exist like that.
I think, you know, when you talk about agnostics in general, there maybe should be some regard to the people who haven't come up with that particular argument or They're just the kind of, you know, starters, the starting people who just haven't thought about it yet and say, I don't know. So that was the main point that I wanted to try to get across anyway.
No, and I think that is a very fair and wise and just evaluation.
And I feel like I've made these arguments a whole bunch of times before, particularly in the early podcasts about religion, but perhaps I haven't made them effectively or succinctly as we've talked about here.
So I think that you're exactly right.
I think that we would not want to...
And it's the same thing with statism or anything like that, right?
right?
We would not want to lump people who have good intentions but bad information or incomplete information along with those who have complete information and bad intentions.
So I think that that's a very, very fair distinction and I will certainly work very hard to keep And to agnostics who are out there, who listen to this if we release it, and I hope that you don't mind if we do.
I'm really, really happy to hear definitions of a deity that involve no self-contradiction, and I would be certainly happy to adjust my position if my understanding of what the word means is incorrect or incomplete.
I'm not 100% sure that you've got my point about that last point I made.
I don't think there has to be people out there who have a different definition of deity that's necessarily correct or anything like that.
It could just be people who haven't been exposed to that particular argument and therefore haven't come to a conclusion.
They say, I don't know, because they were missing that piece of information, if that makes sense.
Well, I agree, but this information is only valid if the definition of a deity is axiomatically self-contradictory.
My argument does not hold water if a god can be conceived of that has no self-contradictory properties but remains a god.
I don't think that's logically possible.
I don't think that you can create an entity limited in time, space and biology and still call it a god.
I don't think you can create a being, even within your own mind, that is mortal and bound by the laws of physics and still say that it is a god.
I think that's, to me, that's very axiomatic, but, you know, again, there may be something that I've missed in that.
I just can't imagine. To me, if you create a mortal being that dies, sorry, mortal that dies, reproduces and evolves and so on and is bound within the laws of physics and reality, to me, that's just not a deity, no matter how advanced the being it is, right?
It's the old Arthur C. Clarke quote that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Well, you can call it magic, but it still remains just technology.
And you could call an advanced being godlike, but it still just remains a very advanced being.
So, but if there's something I've missed in that definition, but my point only holds if a deity by its very nature is a self-contradictory entity, like an eternal life form is a self-contradictory statement or consciousness without matter is a self-contradictory statement or Or existence outside of existence is a self-contradictory statement.
Of course, the omnipotence and omniscience are self-contradictory.
But again, there may be arguments I missed on that, but I think it holds.
But my argument doesn't hold if you can come up with a deity that is not self-contradictory.
Right, yeah. I think that's fine.
I think that's a... A perfectly good kind of qualification to make there.
But yeah, I guess I'm pretty happy with that.
And I don't know, how are you feeling?
Do you think maybe anything has changed your perspective at all for you?
Oh, absolutely. I think that your differentiation between, in a sense, and I'm colloquializing or, I guess, putting my own spin on what you're saying, the difference between people who've not been exposed to an argument and people who have but are trying to fog it, I think that distinction is absolutely essential.
And I think that it's really, in a sense, and it's going to sound kind of weird, but it's opened my heart more towards agnostics.
I have found that most agnostics, though not all, but most agnostics...
I'm not sure. And then when presented with rational arguments for existence and the problematic nature of self-contradictory entities and so on, we'll just start moving the goalposts.
That's been my experience with...
But I think that it's very, very important to not assume that going in.
And I think that's your point, which is to say that it may just be a non-exposure to a particular form of argument that has kept somebody in the agnostic camp, which is actually a rational position if you've not been exposed to more strict or rigorous definitions.
So I really appreciate the call because it has helped remind me of those good, well-intentioned and actually agnostics who have a great deal of integrity by not coming down on a conclusion on something where they haven't been exposed to a particular argument.
Great.
So I'm really happy to hear you say that.
And that's what you meant, right?
I want to make sure I got what your argument was.
Sorry to interrupt. That's what you wanted to make sure I understood, right?
And I think I did.
That's absolutely what I was trying to get across.
And I mean, I suggest if you have a couple of minutes to check out the post I made on the previous page, because I think it's explained a lot more succinctly in there too.
And I mean, at the end of the post, I compared it to anarchism, which is like a category that, you know, a category how we would identify ourselves.
And I know that we can be given certain kind of You know, you get kind of a certain look if you identify yourself as an anarchist, and that's because of a broad kind of conception of anarchy or whatever it is that doesn't fit with our beliefs, but it's kind of like a general idea about it.
And I was trying to get it across, and I think I have the point where there will be some agnostics out there that will suffer the same problem when they're all grouped together.
Right, right. And I really appreciate that distinction, and I think it's a very wise and just one, and I really do appreciate you bringing it up.
Oh, I really appreciate you giving me the time, and I feel really satisfied with this conversation, so I'm quite glad we've had it.
And do you mind if I pop it out there so that I can get agnostics to give me their feedback?
Not at all. I think that'd be great.
I appreciate that. And if, by the by, I can cut this part off at the end, you're enjoying uni and all that?
Yeah, I am. I'm going into exams in a couple of weeks' time, so I'm just kind of buckling down and studying and everything.
I'm taking logic and moral theory and things like that this semester, so they've actually been really good.
I've really enjoyed...
The moral theory one has been quite surprising for me because I think what I found is there are so many philosophers that you can absolutely disagree with, but they're still brilliant and still make absolutely great points anyway.
Agreed, yeah. And just kind of expanding my horizon in that way, because I haven't really been exposed to a lot of historical philosophy, I guess you'd call it, but to get all these different ideas.
And they all kind of ring true in a little way, if that makes sense.
Looking at all the different moral theories, there's kind of like consequentialism, and that kind of has a certain resonance, even though I might not think it's true, but you do act, so you try to have good consequences a lot of the time, and virtue theory like Aristotle came up with, you do try to develop these particular virtues and things like that, although I don't think they're the kind of correct moral theories in the same camp as you with a deontological theory.
I still have found that I'm getting a lot from these other theories as well.
So it's been pretty cool.
I think that's great. I mean, I certainly would recommend to as many people as possible to read as much philosophy as possible.
And yeah, philosophers that you disagree with, you can get, like on some things, you can get Some fantastic things.
And even your disagreement.
You have to figure out why you disagree and where the logical error is if it's there.
Or if it's just something that you dislike emotionally, which is certainly my experience sometimes.
So even the disagreement can be, in some ways, the greatest source of growth.
Right. I think something I've noticed as well is disagreement is philosophy.
You can't really look at a philosopher out of context, otherwise they don't really make sense, but if you look at them in context, I mean, you see Descartes came along and then Locke and Hume were a reaction to Descartes, and then it kind of goes on and on, and everyone's kind of a reaction to the previous person, changing the ideas, refining the ideas, and it's like a continuous chain in a way that I'd never realized before.
I kind of thought they were all individual, but But they're really not.
It's kind of one big continuous kind of project which is going back and forth and slowly getting better, hopefully, but slowly refining the ideas and all those kinds of things.
So that kind of historical aspect has been really interesting too.
Yeah, and that they're bouncing off each other and also off their own existing political and sometimes socioeconomic stimuli as well.
That is always really fascinating.
I mean, certainly for me, I mean, my absolutism, for want of a better word, with regards to religious matters, certainly has something to do with the violence that I see in the world arising from religiosity and not wanting to give people a kind of foggy out to retain superstition.
That certainly has an effect.
It's no argument for or against the correctness of my position, but it certainly is a motive for not stopping short where so many people do and saying, well, maybe, maybe.
Right. Yeah, I agree.
I actually wrote an essay in one of my exams last year.
I don't know if you're familiar with Epictetus, but he was a Stoic philosopher in ancient Greece.
And my essay...
My exam essay was the case that Epictetus' philosophy was post-traumatic stress disorder.
I think I actually made a really good case for it, but I do see that.
I think having the psychological knowledge I picked up at FDR and whatnot, you can see so many...
There's so many links like that that explain why someone would believe what they particularly believe.
And it seems to be kind of a combination of that with the historical, like who they're reacting to or whatever, that seems to really shape people's philosophy.
And it's kind of like a detective novel or something.
You kind of have to go back and work out these puzzles, like, you know, why is this going on and then Once all the pieces fall into place, you can kind of understand it.
Right. And I noticed that when I was reading about my philosophical ancestor when he was talking with Locke about, you know, we really need to figure out a rational basis for morality.
And they never quite got around to it.
And it wasn't because they were dumb, or of course, I mean, they were very, very brilliant men.
But my guess would be it's because they would have been prosecuted because, I mean...
The church didn't even like it, particularly when you would come up with physics explanations that contradicted the Bible, let alone moral explanations or arguments which would render Christian morality not only redundant but incorrect.
And so why weren't they doing it?
Well, because they would be prosecuted and perhaps even jailed or killed.
If they pursued that as a subject.
So that's why it was only in their private letters and never pursued as a public goal.
And so, in a sense, UPB has been made possible because, A, I'm not going to get prosecuted, and B, the technology exists to transmit it outside of the regular channels, which it rather condemns, right?
The basis of academia being statism and force and so on.
So I think that is something that's easy to underestimate the degree to which more Language freedoms and greater communications technology has made something possible, not due to any special intelligence on my part, but just rather due to...
Because, of course, I wouldn't have pursued the book if I couldn't.
Like, it never would have been written if I couldn't communicate it, if I couldn't transmit it, or if I would have been prosecuted.
I mean, very few people write books like that, which are damn hard to write, and then just stick them in their drawer and burn them at their death.
It would sort of be a pointless project.
And so I think the circumstances and environments are as important sometimes as looking at the actual thoughts to really put things in context.
Oh, yeah, absolutely.
And it's really kind of sad when you think of all the great minds that have existed over the centuries that weren't able to do things like that because of what would have happened to them.
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you can see in a lot of philosophy where they kind of start off really well and then they kind of have to sidetrack to include God in something.
And it's just like, you know, that's a shame.
Yeah. Right. Or the philosophers, which you see.
You see a lot of philosophers, particularly in the late Renaissance and Enlightenment, who say all of the arguments against God.
And such is the beauty of faith that we can cast them all aside and continue to believe in Him.
Like, they always had to put that bit at the end.
I mean, even Augustine did some, right?
Where you can see, at least I can see, that they were striving to put out these arguments against God, but then they had to fall back on, and so is the greater the beauty of faith to continue to believe.
And it's a shame that I had to put that last bit in, but I mean, you completely understand why I certainly wouldn't have made any different decisions.
I don't have that for being burned at the stake that some people...
Right, yeah, it is tragic.
I was reading about, I think it might have been Aquinas, but he was kind of defending on philosophers that were making claims that kind of led to a, you know, they were logical claims that were kind of airtight, but they led to Hansen.
The compromise came up with something like, you know, logic should be free to act according to its own rules as long as it's in the case of faith or whatever.
You know, it was like this real, like, oh, no, please don't do that.
Yeah, like, we need logic to build the bridge, right?
We need logic to build a bridge, but faith is a bridge to God.
So that's the idea that you put logic in the mere material world, but the true stuff of life is in the supernatural.
And yeah, there is that division, and you can see that through history, that no human being can survive without reason at all.
But reason and faith are in this constant war, and a lot of people did just bisect completely and give the world to reason and reserve heaven and gods for faith.
Yeah, yeah. I mean, absolutely.
Absolutely brilliant people have gone down off and it's just kind of, it's really sad, I think.
Yeah, it is. It is because it is the shadow of the sword, right?
That bowing before. And I certainly don't condemn anyone for doing that because we are born to live, not to die for values for which everything would die with us if you crossed the church or the state in those days.
Yeah, yeah. But I guess we have to be glad to live here.
Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.
I mean, there's no way that this conversation would exist in any other time.
And in the future, hopefully, it will be somewhat redundant because it will be largely accepted.
But at this time, absolutely.
I mean, I think we have a very smart group of people who are all working on these problems of philosophy, but there's no way to get them together or to have that investment even be valuable in a former time.
Yeah, yeah. I agree totally.
All right. Well, listen, have a great luck with your exams, and I hope that you enjoy them.
I certainly remember them being a little bit stressful, but I also did get quite a bit of excitement in doing my exams, so I certainly wish you the very best.
And I'm, of course, confident at how much you're enjoying your internship and university and all that, and I hope that it continues to be as enjoyable for you.
Thank you very much, and I appreciate how you've handled this call as well.
I mean, it's always easy when you want to question an authority figure, and you have made it quite good.
I keep forgetting that I'm an authority figure, so...
Yeah, you're a very casual author figure, I think, but you're an authority figure nonetheless, so...
I'm an authority figure in very casual pants.
But no, and I appreciate you bringing that up.
I think you made a fantastic...
I certainly do appreciate the sensitivity to the issue that I think you've certainly brought back to me.
Oh, and thank you for giving me that new definition of deity as well because that's given me something.
And I think you probably changed my mind.
So that's fantastic as well.
Hey, mutual wisdom progression.
You can't get better called that.
Absolutely. All right.
Thanks, man. Take care. Thanks.
▲
Export Selection