Agnosticism Discussion

[Aeran]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

if every single person had the same experience of god then I would be forced to agree with the majority, but such is not the case.

Which is exactly my point: "truth" is determined by the consensus of experience. We're not debating whether God does or does not exist (or at least, I'm not).

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Which is exactly my point: "truth" is determined by the consensus of experience. We're not debating whether God does or does not exist (or at least, I'm not).

I start to be reminded of churches when the whole "shared experience used as evidence" argument is brought up. The only way for that to work is if every single person in the entire world had the same experience.

[Aeran]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

I start to be reminded of churches when the whole "shared experience used as evidence" argument is brought up. The only way for that to work is if every single person in the entire world had the same experience.

I still get the feeling we're each having slightly different arguments :/ Let me clarify.

If someone ran into my room and said an alien had landed and tried to kill them with a raygun, I'd figure they're insane and ignore them. But if I was sitting here in my room and an alien popped down through the roof and pointed a raygun at me, I would consider the notion that I was maybe dreaming, or having some weird LSD flashback, but I would also get the hell out of the way. You see what I'm getting at? I'm not claiming that any one individual's personal experience should be the grounds for other people, or society at large, accepting the existence of divinity. I do, however, feel that someone's personal experience, assuming sufficient intellectual rigor, is a valid reason for that person to accept the existence of divinity (or at least to feel that it is the most likely option), and to live their life as such. Whether you want to call that 'Truth' or not is probably just a semantic argument.

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

If someone ran into my room and said an alien had landed and tried to kill them with a raygun, I'd figure they're insane and ignore them. But if I was sitting here in my room and an alien popped down through the roof and pointed a raygun at me, I would consider the notion that I was maybe dreaming, or having some weird LSD flashback, but I would also get the hell out of the way. You see what I'm getting at? I'm not claiming that any one individual's personal experience should be the grounds for other people, or society at large, accepting the existence of divinity. I do, however, feel that someone's personal experience, assuming sufficient intellectual rigor, is a valid reason for that person to accept the existence of divinity (or at least to feel that it is the most likely option), and to live their life as such. Whether you want to call that 'Truth' or not is probably just a semantic argument.

I only meant that consensus of experience isn't the way to truth on any subject, though it is a good starting point for that which is intangible -- I'll give you that.

I absolutely respect people's right to believe what they want based on whatever they want to base it on. I don't even ask that people have reasons to believe what they believe, really, though I will question it myself. In the outside world I rarely talk about my beliefs and philosophies unless asked -- I'm much more of a "live and let live" type of person. So long as you're not being a dick I don't care. I do not jump all over people's asses for evidence of their beliefs or scrutinize them anywhere but in THIS thread, where I should be allowed to express freely my philosophy.

All THAT to say, I never said that people's personal beliefs shouldn't be founded in personal experience.

[Medusa]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

I know many true facts about many gods. But I can't prove or demonstrate or reproduce any of them. Therein lies the rub.

Not the rub. There in lies the truth.

[Rick]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Not the rub. There in lies the truth.

True dat...

[ThorsSon]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

BUT... and this is what makes me not-agnostic... I believe in my beliefs anyway. I accept that I'm possibly wrong. I accept that I'm possibly right. I accept that I'll probably never, ever know for sure. But panentheism is the best interface that I've come up with that describes and defines my personal theories and experiences. So that's what I'm running with.

My understanding of the term agnostic, is that it is a belief about the possibility of KNOWING (or as Bjorn states it, proving) one way or the other. As far as I understand the word (as Huxtley coined it, not the way it is often used in modern speech), one can be an agnostic believer, or an agnostic non-believer.

Personally, I would say that I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe that there are any gods, and I don't believe that it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of god(s).

I don't believe in god(s) because the evidence for them keeps getting replaced by natural scientific explanations... but, on the other hand, even if our science were perfect and complete in explaining everything in the observable universe, it still wouldn't be sufficient to prove that there is no deity, it would only, at best, prove that there is no observable evidence of a deity.

But, for simplicity, I describe myself as an atheist, rather than an agnostic, because of the way people tend to use the word, and assume that "agnostic" means "undecided." I'm not undecided. I do not believe, thus I am an atheist. But, I do agree that it can't be proven.

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

But, for simplicity, I describe myself as an atheist, rather than an agnostic, because of the way people tend to use the word, and assume that "agnostic" means "undecided." I'm not undecided. I do not believe, thus I am an atheist. But, I do agree that it can't be proven.

Yeah, I'm starting to experience that as I identify with the label. I'm not undecided either. This is not a transitory phase. I simply believe that it is unknowable more than I believe in anything else about spirituality. Agnostic Pagan. I think I like the sound of that.

[Denarius]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

One of the main problems I have with Agnosticism, right off the bat, is that it is contingent on two concepts that vary wildly in meaning and are the subject of many debates: God and knowledge.

How we are defining god and how we are defining knowledge is absolutely integral to any sort of discussion about the knowing about gods and their existence.

A few times here god/s has been described as specifically supernatural, as in not existing in our (physical) universe, and I feel that that is an unnecessary limitation to the discussion.

We have no reason to say that a god can't just be some dude on a mountain somewhere who throws lightning bolts and has a cool beard. That's what a lot of our ancestors believed, that gods physically existed within our universe as literal beings. Whether or not that is what you believe, that is a valid belief regarding the nature of deity and thus should be a part of the discussion.

As for knowledge, that's a tricky thing to define but it is not the same thing as scientifically proven. That too I believe is an unnecessary limitation to the discussion. I'd say that we can for the sake of this discussion equate "knowledge" with "Sufficient evidence to cause the average person to accept something, such as the existence of at least one god or the nonexistence of all gods, as fact without coercion."

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

One of the main problems I have with Agnosticism, right off the bat, is that it is contingent on two concepts that vary wildly in meaning and are the subject of many debates: God and knowledge.

How we are defining god and how we are defining knowledge is absolutely integral to any sort of discussion about the knowing about gods and their existence.

A few times here god/s has been described as specifically supernatural, as in not existing in our (physical) universe, and I feel that that is an unnecessary limitation to the discussion.

We have no reason to say that a god can't just be some dude on a mountain somewhere who throws lightning bolts and has a cool beard. That's what a lot of our ancestors believed, that gods physically existed within our universe as literal beings. Whether or not that is what you believe, that is a valid belief regarding the nature of deity and thus should be a part of the discussion.

As for knowledge, that's a tricky thing to define but it is not the same thing as scientifically proven. That too I believe is an unnecessary limitation to the discussion. I'd say that we can for the sake of this discussion equate "knowledge" with "Sufficient evidence to cause the average person to accept something, such as the existence of at least one god or the nonexistence of all gods, as fact without coercion."

Agnosticism is the most reasonable explanation I can find about those two subjects -- which are not that far removed from each other, really. Religion claims to give answers, specific paths claim to have answers and knowledge that they simply cannot demonstrate or provide evidence for outside of unverifiable personal gnosis.

Agnosticism simply states that truth of god is unknown and cannot be proven. It is not a lawyer placing the burden of proof onto the believers so that we may finally find peace, it is a philosophical perspective of reasonable doubt.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

One of the main problems I have with Agnosticism, right off the bat, is that it is contingent on two concepts that vary wildly in meaning and are the subject of many debates: God and knowledge.

How we are defining god and how we are defining knowledge is absolutely integral to any sort of discussion about the knowing about gods and their existence.

A few times here god/s has been described as specifically supernatural, as in not existing in our (physical) universe, and I feel that that is an unnecessary limitation to the discussion.

We have no reason to say that a god can't just be some dude on a mountain somewhere who throws lightning bolts and has a cool beard. That's what a lot of our ancestors believed, that gods physically existed within our universe as literal beings. Whether or not that is what you believe, that is a valid belief regarding the nature of deity and thus should be a part of the discussion.

As for knowledge, that's a tricky thing to define but it is not the same thing as scientifically proven. That too I believe is an unnecessary limitation to the discussion. I'd say that we can for the sake of this discussion equate "knowledge" with "Sufficient evidence to cause the average person to accept something, such as the existence of at least one god or the nonexistence of all gods, as fact without coercion."

the vagaries inherent in the definition of "god" is a huge reason why it cannot be disproven (I focus on this end of the spectrum, due to my disbelief)... no matter how little evidence remains of "god," no matter how many of the things previously presented as evidence of "god" get explained by natural science, the definition of "god" can always be reformulated.

It is a moving goalpost.

But... for myself, when I refer to "god," I refer to the supernatural... everything else falls into the purview of science, and can, potentially, be known.

[Denarius]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Agnosticism simply states that truth god is unknown and cannot be proven.

And therefore does not meaningfully define god or knowledge, yet makes a an absolute judgement about both of them. Which is the entirety of my first problem with Agnosticism.

The second problem is that it takes an absolute stance on a subject with no evidence, so essentially I am agnostic about Agnosticism. I don't think it can be proven or rightly taken as fact that the existence of gods is unprovable, though you could certainly believe that that is the case.

I am however open to the possibility that that will change. I don't make an absolute judgement, because I have no basis of evidence or reason to make that judgement.

But... for myself, when I refer to "god," I refer to the supernatural... everything else falls into the purview of science, and can, potentially, be known.

And would therefore invalidate Agnosticism.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

And would therefore invalidate Agnosticism.

No, because my agnosticism is in reference to the supernatural. Natural things (such as your old man on the mountain) are... well, natural.

We have visited pretty much every mountain (and have satellite images of the ones we haven't visited), and found no lightning hurlers. We have seen no evidence of beings that can hurl lightning. We have discovered the natural processes in clouds that create lightning... the evidence keeps pushing the things that were previously defined as "god" to smaller and smaller corners, and to more and more supernatural realms.

You are pointing to the unknown to try to argue against the stance that there are things that are unknowable.

What I am saying is that there are limitations to our ability to know things, and I am convinced that "god" (and all things supernatural) lie outside that limitation.

If you chose to define "god" as something that is not supernatural, then my agnosticism disappears... but so does "god's" godliness.

[Denarius]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

If you chose to define "god" as something that is not supernatural, then my agnosticism disappears... but so does "god's" godliness.

Again, you are saying that gods are necessarily supernatural. Which is a restrictive and Abrahamic notion.

I just don't agree that gods have to be supernatural to be godly, because that ignores and invalidates real theistic beliefs that real people have. I really shouldn't have to mention this, seeing as where we are having this discussion.

We have seen no evidence of beings that can hurl lightning.

Which is not proof that no such thing exists.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Again, you are saying that gods are necessarily supernatural. Which is a restrictive and Abrahamic notion.

I am saying that a being would have to be supernatural, or possess supernatural traits, to qualify for what I would call a god... yes.

I just don't agree that gods have to be supernatural to be godly, because that ignores and invalidates real theistic beliefs that real people have. I really shouldn't have to mention this, seeing as where we are having this discussion.

I cannot control what other people call "god." I CAN, however, define what I would be willing to call "god" and formulate opinions about it.

I, and most people, would define "god" as supernatural.

The supernatural is, by definition, outside the purview of natural science/observation.

IWhich is not proof that no such thing exists.

It is true, it is not proof that no such thing exists... however, the likelihood of it existing diminishes every day, as there continues to be no evidence for it, and more and more evidence against it... hence my disbelief.

However, that is not really applicable to the conversation, since it is I who argues against the ability to prove/disprove the supernatural.