Rational Agnostic Beliefs vs Irrational Agnostic Beleifs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-09-2014, 09:22 PM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2014 09:28 PM by smileXsmileXsmile.)
Rational Agnostic Beliefs vs Irrational Agnostic Beleifs
So I agnostically believe Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue even though there is no evidence.

What the difference between that, and agnostically believing in God/Jesus/whatever.


Are all agnostic beliefs irrational? What's the deciding factor be rational thinking and irrational thinking when it comes to agnostic beliefs?

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 09:37 PM
RE: Rational Agnostic Beliefs vs Irrational Agnostic Beleifs
(23-09-2014 09:22 PM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  So I agnostically believe Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue even though there is no evidence.

I don't understand your point. There is evidence Columbus sailed the ocean blue (or green 'cause it was the Atlantic after all).

Exclusive: Found after 500 years, the wreck of Christopher Columbus’s flagship the Santa Maria

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
23-09-2014, 09:59 PM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2014 10:05 PM by smileXsmileXsmile.)
Rational Agnostic Beliefs vs Irrational Agnostic Beleifs
That's not the point. The point is I agnostically believe a lot of things. For example, I believe there are six different types of quarks that could be inside an atom because a reputable scientist said so. I myself have no evidence of it but I believe it/accept it as truth.

To me that doesn't sound irrational at all, yet it's an agnostic belief.

So how do you differentiate between a rational agnostic belief and an irrational agnostic belief (such as believing in god)

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 10:11 PM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2014 10:16 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Rational Agnostic Beliefs vs Irrational Agnostic Beleifs
(23-09-2014 09:59 PM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  That's not the point. The point is I agnostically believe a lot of things. For example, I believe there are six different types of quarks that could be inside an atom because a reputable scientist said so. I myself have no evidence of it but I believe it/accept it as truth.

To me that doesn't sound irrational at all, yet it's an agnostic belief.

But I do have access to direct evidence available of scientific results if I have sufficient desire and aptitude to appreciate it. It's published and subject to peer review and reproducible results. I am not sure the phrase "agnostic belief" is meaningful.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
23-09-2014, 10:24 PM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2014 10:32 PM by smileXsmileXsmile.)
Rational Agnostic Beliefs vs Irrational Agnostic Beleifs
There could be another factor. It could be a matter of what Christians call big "T" Truth and little "t" truth. There are things that can be tested and proven (big "T" Truth) and there are things that cannot yet be tested and proved (little "t" truth).

An example of little "t" truth would be: my thoughts. It's true at the moment I'm thinking of a kangaroo playing hop-scotch but that's not provable, so that's a little "t" truth. It's true but not provable.


Maybe you or someone can help me out here with where I'm going. It's not irrational for me to agnostically believe someone (without evidence) if they tell me they're thinking about a kangaroo playing hopscotch, but it is irrational for someone to agnostically believe in god without evidence. Why is that? What differentiates the two; they're both agnostic beliefs.

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2014, 10:26 PM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2014 10:32 PM by smileXsmileXsmile.)
Rational Agnostic Beliefs vs Irrational Agnostic Beleifs
I see what ur saying, with the advances in science, rational agnostic beliefs are slim to none. But are all little "t" truths irrational to belief?...can't be. And since all little "t" truths are not irrational to believe, what differentiates my kangaroo example from the believing in god example.

Again, my thought is there but I might need some help wording what I'm jiving at.

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: Rational Agnostic Beliefs vs Irrational Agnostic Beleifs
(23-09-2014 09:22 PM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  So I agnostically believe Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue even though there is no evidence.

What the difference between that, and agnostically believing in God/Jesus/whatever.


Are all agnostic beliefs irrational? What's the deciding factor be rational thinking and irrational thinking when it comes to agnostic beliefs?

I think the first thing I have to do is pin down what you mean when you use the word "agnostic."

I'm just thinking out loud.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: Rational Agnostic Beliefs vs Irrational Agnostic Beleifs
(23-09-2014 10:26 PM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  I see what ur saying, with the advances in science, rational agnostic beliefs are slim to none. But are all little "t" truths irrational to belief?...can't be. And since all little "t" truths are not irrational to believe, what differentiates my kangaroo example from the believing in god example.

Possibility and probability. That is what differentiates your kangaroo example from the god example.

If I tell you that I'm thinking of a kangaroo dressed in a tuxedo playing hopscotch, it is quite possible. I can think of anything I want so you would most likely go along with it.

If I tell you that I saw a a kangaroo dressed in a tuxedo playing hopscotch, well...you might be a little more skeptic then. You might start asking questions: Where did I see it? When? How? Under what circumstances? And if my answers are not aligned with what you consider possible or probable, you might not believe me.

There will be a correlation between how unlikely my claims are to your skepticism. (or at least, there should be)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2014, 12:30 PM
RE: Rational Agnostic Beliefs vs Irrational Agnostic Beleifs
(23-09-2014 10:11 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 09:59 PM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  That's not the point. The point is I agnostically believe a lot of things. For example, I believe there are six different types of quarks that could be inside an atom because a reputable scientist said so. I myself have no evidence of it but I believe it/accept it as truth.

To me that doesn't sound irrational at all, yet it's an agnostic belief.

But I do have access to direct evidence available of scientific results if I have sufficient desire and aptitude to appreciate it. It's published and subject to peer review and reproducible results. I am not sure the phrase "agnostic belief" is meaningful.

Another point is that given enough study and education you too could become a scientist and see the evidence for yourself where as there is no evidence for god that any scientist has ever seen.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
24-09-2014, 07:28 PM
RE: Rational Agnostic Beliefs vs Irrational Agnostic Beleifs
(23-09-2014 09:22 PM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  So I agnostically believe Christopher Columbus sailed the ocean blue even though there is no evidence.

What the difference between that, and agnostically believing in God/Jesus/whatever.


Are all agnostic beliefs irrational? What's the deciding factor be rational thinking and irrational thinking when it comes to agnostic beliefs?

The difference is MAJOR.

Belief 1: A guy piloted a boat...The end.

Belief 2: God, who cannot be seen, heard, or proven, fathered a divine son. He was crucified and killed. He rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, a place which cannot be proven, or seen. He died so that "sins" could be forgiven. Not just "sins" that had already been committed, but he died so that even the ones that had NOT been committed yet, by people who have not been born yet could be forgiven.

Because of this, you MUST believe in him, because he loves you, AND his father loves you. But if you DON'T believe in him, he is so loving that he will burn you forever in hell...forever...(I know that's REALLY REALLY the short version, and I just picked on ONE religion.)


One of the beliefs is pretty simple, and falls within the realm of what can be expected to happen based on our current understanding of physics, shipbuilding, and maritime navigation. The other requires a leap of faith BEYOND what is currently known to exist in the world. Drinking Beverage

"You're very clever, young man, very clever, but it's turtles all the way down!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hoops's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: