So does anyone believe in ghosts or aliens?

[z929669]

Seems like Carl Sagan is a pretty strong proponent of the idea that 'agnosticism' is the only logical, non-faith-based position. To 'believe' in or disbelieve in God is a 'faith' position either way. I agree with Carl ... nobody knows, so taking either extreme position seems futile to me ;)

 

... but whatever floats yer boat, I say. Live & let live.

[EssArrBee]

Sorry, but this is completely incorrect. Agnosticism is not a "religion", no, but it is a doctrine nonetheless. It was coined by Huxley and advocated for by several philosophers pre-dating the term, and is most commonly described as neither believing or disbelieving in God. Huxley said the following: "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus [sic] application of a single principle... the fundamental axiom of modern science... In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration... In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." and "Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.". Know that this man was a philosopher however, and when he says it is not a creed, but a method he says so to implicate the simplicity and naturality of the approach. In later years most philosophers have defined it as a doctrine, such as Bertrand Russel who said the following: 

 

 

Carl Sagan himself said the following about atheism: "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.", clearly indicating that he believe it not to be agnostic.

 

There are people who would define themselves as agnostic theists, and agnostic atheists, but most theists or atheists are not agnostics per say.

Well, if using words by there literal meaning and etymology is completely incorrect, then I want to be completely incorrect. Agnostic literally means without knowledge. Greek prefix "a-" means without and "gnosis" means knowledge. Name one person that has the knowledge of the existence of God or the lack thereof. That's means I'm exactly correct on the usage of such a word. 

 

Huxley may have expanded that usage to fit his and/or Darwin's philosophical view, but it doesn't mean my and the literal definitions are or have become wrong because someone tries to change it for their needs. Huxley had to have terminology for his views since he was dealing with the brunt of people standing against Darwin's theory. Darwin didn't do any of the public debate over his work, so Huxley did it for him. Even earned the nickname "Darwin's Bulldog". The idea he came up with wasn't new one though. It was many centuries old. 

 

It boils down to two types of questions:

1. Do you believe in God?
   • A yes or no question about your faith or lack thereof. Theist or atheist.
2. Do you know there is a God?
   • Yes or no. It's a question of knowledge or ignorance. Gnostic or agnostic. 

Sagan's statement was asserting that the atheist knows there is no God. He's giving a situation where the atheist knows this. In reality does the atheist actually know? Of course not. One does simply not gain knowledge through declaration or providence. Then the atheist is also agnostic. Same holds true for everyone. We just don't know. That's why I said you may be prescribed to being non-religious, or more accurately, irreligious.

 

Penn Jillette wrote a book about this non-religious notion that some self proclaimed agnostics live their lives as atheists. They don't pray, they don't go to church, they don't read religious texts... So if your actions are that of an atheist, then you really are one. I feel that is irreconcilable with Sagan's assertions of the atheist knowing there is no God and Sagan's own claim to be non-religious. "I'm not any more skeptical about your religious beliefs than I am about every new scientific idea I hear about." That is really the key in the atheist vs non-religious argument to me. Atheists live like there is no God. Because of that there is one major difference between them and non-religious people. Skepticism. The irreligious individual lives as if there is no God, not out of faith or knowledge, but rather that they have no idea how to live for a god who's existence they are ignorant of. The atheist does this on there knowledge that there is no God or the belief there is no God. But, in our world where Sagan's atheist, with proof of God's nonexistence, does in fact not exist, we can only say that everyone is agnostic regardless of their labels. I'd go so far to say that most self-proclaimed atheists that maintain skeptical of any belief are not atheists, but rather irreligious.

 

Let others call themselves what they desire, but don't take it on faith.

 

---

 

Now that I've brought up Sagan enough, there is one memory I have about something relating to metaphysics he once said. I don't remember exactly what it was he was talking about, but I know it was more about metaphysics as philosophy. Something along the lines that there is no laboratory for metaphysics. Physicists come up with an idea or get one from someone smarter, then postulate something, research it, and come up with elaborate ways to test the idea. If the idea turns out to be true, then it is henceforth useless. The idea is not what matters anymore, it's the truth. That process isn't really apart of metaphysics.

 

Though, saying that outright is also a bit disingenuous. Some parts of metaphysics debate have moved into the realm of measurable science. The free will vs deterministic behavior debate is now part of biology fields such as genetics. Maybe the other parts one day move into the lab as well, but I very much doubt that we will ever have the real Dr. Venkman, Stantz, and Spengler crossing streams.

Seems like Carl Sagan is a pretty strong proponent of the idea that 'agnosticism' is the only logical, non-faith-based position. To 'believe' in or disbelieve in God is a 'faith' position either way. I agree with Carl ... nobody knows, so taking either extreme position seems futile to me ;)

 

... but whatever floats yer boat, I say. Live & let live.

If only those of faith would also Live & let live. 

[MonoAccipiter]

Quoting etymology is very interesting, but isn't even remotely close to being relevant when defining the word. For example in my language there is a word - ekvipasje - which means horse carriage, but the etymological origins of the word comes from the word ekvipere, meaning equipping something with clothing which comes from the french word equiper, meaning equip. This in turn either comes from Norse skipa, meaning to fix or prepare something, which comes from skip, meaning (in both Norse and Norwegian) ship; or from Old English scipian, meaning to sail. I have tons of more examples of this, as I'm more than averagely interested in etymology and actually own a massive etymological dictionary in my language, but pretending that their origins defines the words would just be ludicrous. I should point out that this is a pretty common linguistic misconception known as an etymological fallacy.

 

Huxley did not try to change anything. He coined the term, and, as I have demonstrated, terminology is more often understood from their contextual use than their etymological origins. I didn't try to say the idea he came up with was a new one - I even pointed out that there were earlier philosophers discussing the same ideas - but when discussing the term it is natural to either discuss what it was originally intended to describe, or what it has more commonly been used to describe recently, both which point to the same thing. Whether or not Carl Sagan thinks it's logical to hold another view, or whether or not we think it is, frankly doesn't really matter.

 

The agnostic position is to naturally assume that certain metaphysical or religious claims are either unknown or inherently unknown. There are people who believe that one can know that God exists, just like there are people, like Richard Dawkins, that believe "permanent agnosticism ... (to be) ... "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice".". Penn Jillette sounds like a holder of said belief, though I have no knowledge of who he is. I prefer presenting my arguments without the weight of who presented them in any case. 

 

 

The atheist does this on there knowledge that there is no God or the belief there is no God. But, in our world where Sagan's atheist, with proof of God's nonexistence, does in fact not exist, we can only say that everyone is agnostic regardless of their labels. I'd go so far to say that most self-proclaimed atheists that maintain skeptical of any belief are not atheists, but rather irreligious.

Where do you prove this? It seems like you're beginning your argument with your conclusion (circulus in demonstrando). You hold that they do not know, but you overrate the value of your view when discussing it from a purely logical point of view. I agree that I don't think anyone holds the answer to the question of God's existence, but that only defines me as an agnostic, not anyone else. 

 

 

Now that I've brought up Sagan enough, there is one memory I have about something relating to metaphysics he once said. I don't remember exactly what it was he was talking about, but I know it was more about metaphysics as philosophy. Something along the lines that there is no laboratory for metaphysics. Physicists come up with an idea or get one from someone smarter, then postulate something, research it, and come up with elaborate ways to test the idea. If the idea turns out to be true, then it is henceforth useless. The idea is not what matters anymore, it's the truth. That process isn't really apart of metaphysics.

I wrote several long posts about how I feel this sort of disrespectful and ignorant attitude towards the field of philosophy makes me profoundly sad, and doesn't do either field any favors, so I don't really feel the need to revisit it. If you want my opinion on the matter, read my exchange with Ayien. I feel we reached an understanding.

 

EDIT: Added part about it being an etymological fallacy.

Edited March 5, 2016 by MonoAccipiter

[Guest]

I believe in both and will tell my stories when I'm back in front of my computer.

Whoops I bumped this trying to quote. Oh well... *cough*

Edited May 12, 2016 by Guest

[TechAngel85]

Ah well...

 

The first story came from my grandma. She told me my grandpa once saw a 'UFO' while working in the mountains. He described it as lights in a circle with lights crossing the center. Apparently several days later they found a man dead in the area. This was years and years ago, but he never did like talking about it.

 

The second is a personal one from when I was younger (teenager). It was night and my mom was driving my sister and I to one of her friend's house. Her house was in an older town about 10 miles away. When we pulled in the driveway we all three saw a woman in a longer white "moo-moo" gown stand up off the porch steps, open the door to the house, and walk inside. It was late so we didn't think anything of it. The only thing was, when we were in the house, 3 minutes later, everyone was in the living sitting fully clothed in their daytime clothes. We asked them and they said no one had been outside in a few hours, yet we clearly all saw this event when pulling up to the house. I remember it giving me the willies when I was that age.

[Teabag86]

Ghosts. No. However I can't logically explain the incident that happened when I was housesitting an old semi in Bondi for a friend. Middle of the night I felt this heavy dark "presence" in the room. The owners cat was sleeping on the bed with me. It woke up and started hissing aggressively at something only it could see in the room. Very freaky. I got up and let the cat out of the room and it ran around the house like it was insane. As I walked to the bathroom I passed through the living room and the temperature in that one room was freezing cold, like ice, in the middle of the Australian summer! I didn't sleep there again after that. When my "friend" returned I asked them if there was anything strange with the house. They casually said, "Oh yeah, it's definitely haunted". Handy information to know before agreeing to housesit!

 

Aliens. Yes. Saw a UFO when I was a kid.

[darkside]

Ghosts. No. However I can't logically explain the incident that happened when I was housesitting an old semi in Bondi for a friend. Middle of the night I felt this heavy dark "presence" in the room. The owners cat was sleeping on the bed with me. It woke up and started hissing aggressively at something only it could see in the room. Very freaky. I got up and let the cat out of the room and it ran around the house like it was insane. As I walked to the bathroom I passed through the living room and the temperature in that one room was freezing cold, like ice, in the middle of the Australian summer! I didn't sleep there again after that. When my "friend" returned I asked them if there was anything strange with the house. They casually said, "Oh yeah, it's definitely haunted". Handy information to know before agreeing to housesit!

 

Aliens. Yes. Saw a UFO when I was a kid.

That is freaky indeed. I will be going to Sydney and Melbourne this June. Can't wait for the trip.

[Guest]

Ah well...

 

The first story came from my grandma. She told me my grandpa once saw a 'UFO' while working in the mountains. He described it as lights in a circle with lights crossing the center. Apparently several days later they found a man dead in the area. This was years and years ago, but he never did like talking about it.

 

The second is a personal one from when I was younger (teenager). It was night and my mom was driving my sister and I to one of her friend's house. Her house was in an older town about 10 miles away. When we pulled in the driveway we all three saw a woman in a longer white "moo-moo" gown stand up off the porch steps, open the door to the house, and walk inside. It was late so we didn't think anything of it. The only thing was, when we were in the house, 3 minutes later, everyone was in the living sitting fully clothed in their daytime clothes. We asked them and they said no one had been outside in a few hours, yet we clearly all saw this event when pulling up to the house. I remember it giving me the willies when I was that age.

Those things are weird. I remember I was playing around up in the fields where I live when I was younger, and we saw these two people walk by about 20 feet away from us. They were both dressed in 19th century clothing and the woman had an old parasol umbrella. They didn't fade away or anything, but we saw them walk away. I have never seen anyone around here wear those sort of clothes and there wasn't any event that day. I leaned more to them just being weird or something, but honestly I can't say for sure.

 

@TeaBag

 

It was clearly haunted, you even had another person and a cat confirm that.   You're in denial.

[MonoAccipiter]

That's some really spooky stuff, Tech. I think my grandparents neighbours used to think their house was haunted, but I've never experienced something like that myself. Though a week or so after my grandparents died, there was this ticking sound in our house that we just couldn't place. I think at the time I thought it was a thermostat or something like that turning on, but I must admit I haven't heard it since before the funeral (without knowing what to make of it). 

 

The stuff on the TV though, with "clairvoyant" people communicating with spirits and the such, that has always seemed phony to me. I remember I saw a show called the Sixth Sense or something (translated) and they were out on a lake when they were told someone died there (whose pictures were in an envelope) and asked how it happened, and everyone gave some very cloudy answer about a tragic drowning or something of the like. Turns out the lake wasn't even there when people died after a church caught fire. Somehow they still managed to claim they were right in some way though - perhaps they would have done well in politics... JK 

Edited May 12, 2016 by MonoAccipiter