Agnosticism Discussion

[Rae'ya]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Oh I've had loads of experiences. If you really read my first post you'll find mention that my practice is much more akin to panentheism. I spend time with my spirituality and nurse it like a tender seedling. I feel as if I have a very deep and meaningful relationship with The Great Spirit and ask for guidance, inspiration, make offerings and prayers, etc. The fact that you think I am lacking in rich, spiritual fiber simply because I do not consider them empirical evidence of their validity is, as you said before, laughable and arrogant. I simply accept that I am probably wrong about the Truth and that there is no way to ever know. I do not use agnosticism as a chain to keep me to the ground, I use it as wings to soar on. Now that I am not worried about being right or finding something right, I am free to simply live my life and cultivate my spirit using whatever tools I please.

I'm finding it very interesting to see the way that we identify differently, yet have fairly similar beliefs. Both Thalassa and yourself primarily identify as agnostic, yet I identify primarily as panentheistic (specifically in relation the 'The Divine' or 'god' as we are discussing here, rather than spirits). I had never even considered agnostic as an identifier until this thread. I had always assumed that to be agnostic was to take a stance of 'I don't know and will never know' and leave it at that... which is patently not true. You have a hypothesis that you believe is plausible enough to create a spiritual practice around. But that begs the question... does belief require 'knowledge'. I don't think so. I have beliefs that I don't know the truth of. If I knew the truth of them I would call them 'known facts' rather than 'beliefs'.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Yep, and this is where I'm heading after 6 pages of this thread. I never realised that agnosticism could be applied in such ways... and yet here I am going... 'well I guess that makes me an agnostic believer'.

I think this is one of the best discussions we've had here recently. Certainly the most though-provoking. And I love that.

(of course... I still have two pages of replies to read... lol)

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

I'm finding it very interesting to see the way that we identify differently, yet have fairly similar beliefs. Both Thalassa and yourself primarily identify as agnostic, yet I identify primarily as panentheistic (specifically in relation the 'The Divine' or 'god' as we are discussing here, rather than spirits). I had never even considered agnostic as an identifier until this thread. I had always assumed that to be agnostic was to take a stance of 'I don't know and will never know' and leave it at that... which is patently not true. You have a hypothesis that you believe is plausible enough to create a spiritual practice around. But that begs the question... does belief require 'knowledge'. I don't think so. I have beliefs that I don't know the truth of. If I knew the truth of them I would call them 'known facts' rather than 'beliefs'.

Medusa helped me clarify (unbeknownst to her) in another thread by differentiating her beliefs from her moral code.

My philosophy is that we have never and will never truly understand the nature of divinity. My beliefs are constantly changing due to new evidence and personal experience -- I simply do not portend that my personal experience has any effect on the nature of god. I do not think I am discovering god/divinity as I explore the path I walk, I think I am discovering more of myself. And hey, knowing your enemy is the best part to know how to triumph over her.

Once the burden of proof is removed entirely from the equation I find it much easier to listen to people as we speak of the esoteric. I don't necessarily care that I filter their personal experiences through my bullshit-meter, nor do I act as if their experiences are less than PERSONAL truth... but personal truth is not universal. Period. And in that, I believe more strongly than I do in panentheism, witchcraft, or any path that ever existed, or will ever exist. I do not believe in humans that much, or any other creature either, for that matter. I am absolutely militant in my stance that knowledge of god is personal, and therefore unknowable since personal gnosis is not evidence of anything.

[Rae'ya]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

The second problem is that it takes an absolute stance on a subject with no evidence...

Just want to point out that you can apply this exact statement to ANY form of -theism. They are all taking an absolute stance on a subject with no evidence. I think that's thats the point of Agnosticism... their absolute stance is that there is no evidence and therefore no absolute stance can be taken.

Also... for an apatheist you are showing a great deal of interest in the definition or non-definition of the nature of deity.

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Just want to point out that you can apply this exact statement to ANY form of -theism. They are all taking an absolute stance on a subject with no evidence. I think that's thats the point of Agnosticism... their absolute stance is that there is no evidence and therefore no absolute stance can be taken.

I think the trouble he is conveying is that I DO take a stance, quite militantly that we cannot, have never, and will never know. Mostly though, this is a prevailing view of agnosticism through the ages as impertinent to time, culture, technology, and religion. A lot of people don't take too kindly to being told they're wrong. I guess I understand, though I do not empathize at all. We ARE wrong, and I DO believe that, and I refuse to be silent on my own damn thread.

[Denarius]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Does that mean you view gods as tangible?

I don't view gods as anything other than ideas, hypothetical beings. Therefore, as far as I am concerned gods can be whatever you imagine them to be. It's incredibly presumptive to say gods must be anything, when we don't even know whether they exist or not.

And, upon further review of your Apatheistic beliefs, I realize what the heart of your argument is (as I understand it): I am taking a militant stance on something that you are disinterested in providing evidence for. This sentence from wikipedia helped lead me to that conclusion: an apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist.

I'm not a scientist, I am just some dude. If I had evidence, I would provide it. All I have are my thoughts on the subject. If you feel that they are adding nothing to the discussion, given what you say further down that seems likely, then fine. I will refrain from discussing the subject unless I am addressed specifically. If I keep bothering you, it's no longer my fault.

Therefore, would it be true to say that you take my militant stance on the impossibility of ever knowing to be as concerning as someone who claims that they have answers?

Concerning? No. I don't find either of those concerning, I find them both overly presumptive.

<Agnosticism> does not claim to have any answers, I do not claim to have any answers -- I simply extend that sentiment to everyone, including myself. Therefore, humans are fallible and have no affect on the nature of god, if there even is one.

But again, the major claim of Agnosticism is that the existence or non-existence of gods is absolutely unknowable. All I am saying is that that claim is no more substantiated than any other claim relating to gods. Mine, yours, or anybody's. No more or less deserving of a derisive chortle.

Because, any one of us could very well be right. I see no reason why we couldn't be. As I learned from multiple choice tests in school, never underestimate the potential of dumb luck.

[Rowanwood]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

All this thread seems to prove to me is that there are people who love to argue about stuff but have no actual argument to make.

Which is, truthfully, like having a conversation with anyone who claims to know a 'universal' truth that cannot be proven...hence making the point yet again of the validity of an agnostic path for anyone who has not experienced or does not trust any personally experienced interaction with a supernatural force.



As an honest question, I can't help but wonder if it isn't threatening to some people who feel they have found a truth to be challenged by someone who says "but how do you know for sure?" which leads to hysteria. Do you think that perhaps if you aren't sure, that challenge itself could be a very disturbing shake to your faith?

[thalassa]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

But again, the major claim of Agnosticism is that the existence or non-existence of gods is absolutely unknowable. All I am saying is that that claim is no more substantiated than any other claim relating to gods. Mine, yours, or anybody's. No more or less deserving of a derisive chortle.

Erm. No. No, that isn't the major claim of agnosticism. Or, if you think it is, then you don't understand it as well as you think you do. Agnosticism, as per the dude that invented the term, is a process, not a belief. Or:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science.

Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

T. H. Huxley,"Agnosticism", 1889]

The basic tenet of agnosticism is tha tthe existance and nature of god is ultimately unknowable, as we stand right here, in the last several millenia of human history, and for the forseeable future. BUT that this could change with any paradigm shifing event, at any time, and we should expect to change our opinions in accordance with the evidence prodived.

While I tend to think its highly unlikely, or other agnostics may think seems just plain impossible, those are matters of personal opinion rather than the "major claim" of agnosticim. And, if we want to play that sort of linguistic hair-splitting game, "Agnositicism" is incapable or making any claims, since it lacks a brain or a mouth or hands or an internet connection.

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

All this thread seems to prove to me is that there are people who love to argue about stuff but have no actual argument to make.

Yes, I do love to argue. I like to have stones to sharpen my blade against and I love the spirit of civil debate, which so far, I believe this thread has been very respectful and civil while still trying to really get underneath some of these ideas. And I DO have an argument to make -- my argument is that proof of god is ultimately unknowable and therefore we should all be willing to accept the fact that what we believe might be a total crock.

That is really all I'm asking. Put your beliefs to the test, cast them into the fire and see what sticks around after the heat is gone, challenge yourselves! Consider the possibility that we are wrong and that it is perfectly all right.

Which is, truthfully, like having a conversation with anyone who claims to know a 'universal' truth that cannot be proven...hence making the point yet again of the validity of an agnostic path for anyone who has not experienced or does not trust any personally experienced interaction with a supernatural force.

I don't think it's about the trust -- I trust my personal god, I just accept that I am probably only seeing one very, very tiny side of it, if I'm seeing anything at all. I do not pretend that my personal gnosis has any affect on the nature of god/divinity, nor do I confuse my personal revelations with universal truths. I accept above all else that there is still a highly likely possibility that there is no god (although I personally believe there is) and that furthermore, we probably do not "know" what we think we do.

Again, I find it very interesting that everyone experiences THEIR path, not someone else's path. You hardly ever hear about a Christian waking up one day because Artemis answered their prayers. You probably won't hear about an atheist being visited by an angel. We all experience our own personal flavor of divinity if we believe it and it simply doesn't make any sense to me why we wouldn't question that we just made all this shit up in our heads.

My philosophy is agnostic, militantly so.
My path is eclectic, openly so.

As an honest question, I can't help but wonder if it isn't threatening to some people who feel they have found a truth to be challenged by someone who says "but how do you know for sure?" which leads to hysteria. Do you think that perhaps if you aren't sure, that challenge itself could be a very disturbing shake to your faith?

I think you're SPOT ON and I HOPE that's what is happening because that is exactly what I intend to do. The only way to know what you believe is to put it to the test. Do not blindly accept. Do not be complacent. Search, and do it hard and with passion and with severity. I struggled with this for the last year until I finally realized that a weight of burden had been lifted from my shoulders.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Just for fun, I'll toss this out -

In the 1930s, Kurt Godel proved (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem) that any logical system with enough complexity to make complex statements can not (and this is absolutely true 100% of the time) prove all things that are undeniably true.

In other words, it has been mathematically demonstrated they we can just never really know for sure.

It's kind of comforting, really - a big weight off one's shoulders.

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Just for fun, I'll toss this out -

In the 1930s, Kurt Godel proved (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem) that any logical system with enough complexity to make complex statements can not (and this is absolutely true 100% of the time) prove all things that are undeniably true.

In other words, it has been mathematically demonstrated they we can just never really know for sure.

It's kind of comforting, really - a big weight off one's shoulders.

OOOOOH, nice!

I also consider it to be a very freeing concept. Now that I don't have to worry about finding THE ULTIMATE TRUF I am free to simply live and practice that which nourishes my well-being the most.

[Medusa]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

All the theists are laughing at us.

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

All the theists are laughing at us.

I fear it may be worse -- I think they pity us.

[ThorsSon]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

I fear it may be worse -- I think they pity us.

It's ok. It's a two way street.

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

It's ok. It's a two way street.

I try not to be incensed. I feel the same way when my imbecilic family members tries to talk to me about Christ, knowing full well that I have my own brand of spirituality.

It's like going into someone's house, looking around, and suggesting a different wall color. WTF, this is my house!

[Medusa]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Mickey is real!
No he's not!
But my Disneyland Official Brochure has him right on the cover!
But my Magic Mountain doesn't mention him. It's all about Montezuma yo.

This is how it sounds to me.