Gettin' In Tune

I am just curious where Agnostics draw the line between deism and agnosticism. Why do you draw this line where you do?

As for me, I am going to remain neutral and then proceed. I am two weeks into my new journey of cultivating 'god/the force/entity/the big cheese/etc'. I would really appreciate some help demarcating the two belief systems and the reasons for this demarcation.

Thanks

Jayhawker Soule

The question makes no sense. There is no 'line between deism and agnosticism'.

it might help to read Huxley on Agnosticism

pseudonous

Well, a deist believes in god and an agnostic does not believe in a god. This is probably the only absolute distinction you can draw between the two groups. Having said that, I think deists are more accepting of self evident truths and also believe in a synthetic a priori. I don't know any agnostics that believe in a synthetic a priori. Likewise, I think agnostics would only accept something as self evident if they were making a non-critical decision.

Gettin' In Tune

Thanks for your reply pseudo. I was wondering if you could explain 'synthetic a priori' a little more. I understand the concept of a priori, but this is the first time I have seen someone use the term 'synthetic a priori'.

pseudonous

By synthetic, I basically mean to synthesize or create new knowledge. It has to do with the meaning of a statement. Some statements such as "All squares have four sides." are called analytic because they are true or false just in virtue of the meaning of the words. On the other hand, a synthetic statement (e.g. It is a cloudy day.) is not true or false by virtue of the meaning of the words.

Perhaps more concisely, to say there is no synthetic a priori, is to say there is no a priori knowledge which tells us something new about the world.

Gettin' In Tune

I am just putting some thoughts together and I do have another question.

For both deism and agnosticism, man is unable to know ‘god’. In deism ‘god’ will not be known, while in agnosticism ‘god’ cannot be known.

For a deist, ‘god’ (whether intelligent, sentient, or moral is another question altogether) is responsible for the creation of the universe but does not interfere.

For an agnostic, ‘god’ simply cannot be known (whether non-existent or existent) with our current understanding.

My question is, the deist arrives his conclusion by applying a synthetic a priori while the agnostic arrives at his conclusion but not applying synthetic a priori?

Jayhawker Soule

No - the agnostic asserts that the existence and attributes of supernatural agency are inherently unknowable.

pseudonous

I'm not sure I understand what your asking; your question appears to be more of a statement but maybe this will clear things up. I think all deist proofs for god rely on a synthetic a priori. An agnostic does not arrive at conclusions using synthetic a priori arguments. An agnostic considers all a priori knowledge to be analytic.

Gettin' In Tune

Yes, I can see how my question can be confused as a statement. I did not know whether to ask a question or make a statement.

.

I think I was arriving at the same conclusion about synthetic a priori analysis. This has been very interesting and educating and it deserves more of my attention. Do you know of any mathematical proofs for either deism or agnosticism?

The An-Jel

If there were any real mathematical proofs that didn't cheat with the boundary conditions for deism or agnosticism then everyone would be wearing it on their T-Shirts!

__________________
"And let there be Light!" said the Blind man.

Life is simple, people make it complicated - Basilisk

Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti - Royal Gibraltar Regiment