6 ms·
> Whether or not God exists objectively isn't really something I think about or care about answering. I think that you could fairly be described as an agnostic
by MikeCapone 16y ago
> Whether or not God exists objectively isn't really something I think about or care about answering.
I think that you could fairly be described as an agnostic, then.
- Gormo 16y agoApathetist is a better description. An agnostic says he doesn't know the answer; I'm saying the question is meaningless.
- MikeCapone 16y agoTo elaborate a little, would you say it's "meaningless" to you personally, or in general? Just curious.
- Gormo 16y agoI don't see how the concept of meaning can be discussed in general terms at all. It seems to inhere in the relationship between a person and the ideas he considers. I've certainly encountered other people who behave and speak in ways that indicate that they attribute a great deal of meaning to this question (often ironically because they insist on asserting an empirical basis for their faith), so I would not presume to speak for them. (BTW, note that I'm being pedantic in this thread in order to discuss this topic with a high degree of precision. I'm not trying to create a semantics rathole, honest. But oftentimes clarifying the semantics is necessary to have a productive conversation.)
- hakl 16y agoThat sounds vaguely like ignosticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
- rokhayakebe 16y agoI'm saying the question is meaningless Why? Is it because we have not been able to answer it yet?
- rbanffy 16y agoCan it be answered in any uncontroversial way?
- cema 16y agoOr perhaps "can it be answered in a scientific way"?
- rbanffy 16y agoOr just "answered". OTOH, I can always answer that 2+2 is 5. And no amount of faith will make me right.
- cema 16y ago"2+2 is 5" is a mathematical statement. Mathematics is different from the rest of science in that it is not an experimental science, so that a (theoretical) statement does not need an experimental confirmation, just a (theoretical) proof.
- baddox 16y agoIsn't the question only meaningless if the answer is No? Assuming you're talking about the traditional Judeo-Christian God, then you would certainly be missing out on a lot of good (both in this life and the next) if the answer is Yes.
- Gormo 16y agoIf the question is meaningless, it has no meaningful answer; the answer cannot be "no", so... no. Your line of thinking is begging the question; you pre-suppose that the question is meaningful before you address its meaning.
- baddox 16y agoOK then, what does it mean to say a question is meaningless? If an answer to the question is important, how is the question meaningless?
- Gormo 16y agoWhen I say "the question is meaningless", I'm saying that the question doesn't identify a gap in useful knowledge of the world. It might be a purely definitional question for which the answer boils down to a tautology, or it may identify a trick of logic that appears to be knowledge but is not, e.g. a paradox, or it might simply be nonsense. I say the question "does God exist?" is meaningless because: (a) it is a simple Boolean yes/no question, but its is asking about the relationship between two incredibly abstract concepts: "God" and "existence". To address the question, these concepts must be defined in precise terms; but being abstract, there is no suitably objective metric to measure their precision against. Therefore, in practice, any logically consistent answer to this question will be a tautology. (b) the validity of religion is not actually dependent upon the answer to this question; the concept of "faith" precludes the necessity of empirical validation. If you are religious, you may consider it important to believe in God, but this is not the same thing as it being important that God objectively exist. (c) formalities of thought aside, my underlying metric is how useful answering the question is, not how true it is, and I do not see useful value in answering the question. Asking the question, on the other hand, opens the door to interesting conversations like this one, which give us an opportunity to analyze, exercise and improve our thought processes, which is why I'm participating in the discussion so extensively. :)
- chanakya 16y agoStudies have been done on the effect of (other people's) prayers in curing a patient. They've all shown no effect, but let's say the experiment had shown convincingly that prayers of the followers of a specific religion result in major improvements to the patients' health. Would you still say the question was meaningless? If not, how can a question be meaningless if it depends on the result of an experiment?
- elliottkember 16y agoIt's still jumping to an unrealistic conclusion. Interesting, for sure - but it'd just mean better scientific explanation is required, otherwise it's the very definition of superstition.
- rbanffy 16y agoWhat you ask is whether the question remains meaningless when confronted by strong evidence towards the existence of a godlike supernatural being that answers to prayers of a given group. I guess the question will remain meaningless until such evidence is uncovered.
- cema 16y agoI guess the question will remain meaningless until such evidence is uncovered I doubt people who think the question is meaningless will be looking for answers. This is one reason such "evidence" may never be available. Another reason (a stronger one, in my opinion) is that this question is purely a matter of belief and therefore outside of the realm of science. Which may be another explanation why some people refuse to consider the question.
- rbanffy 16y agoIf it's outside the realm of science, it's no longer a question. The believer already has an answer. In fact, any answer that makes the believer happy will do, for it cannot be neither proved nor disproved. Science folks my return to the question in the future, when there is a hypothesis to test. Right now, it can't. Trying to answer a question by throwing reason out the window cannot be called trying very hard...