Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Agnosticism Discussion

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Agnosticism Discussion

    Agnosticism, as coined by my personal hero in 1869, Darwin's Bulldog, the late, great, T. H. Huxtley, that broody, hot Victorian man-muffin in muttonchops, is this:

    Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle...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.
    T. H. Huxtley
    I like his definition.

    Agnosticism is a way of viewing the divine (whether it be one, many, or none). God (whether it be one, many or none) is ultimately unknowable, period.

    Robert Ingersoll's* "Why I am an Agnostic" (if you follow the link, you may have to navigate a wee bit to find it (and he has another titled "Gods") is probably the best example of Agnosticism as an action (take it with a grain of salt, it was written in the late 1800's and some things have changed a bit (genetics, physics, anthropology, etc)).

    *Robert Ingersoll was a famous American orator and writer of the late 1800's
    Last edited by thalassa; 11 Dec 2013, 14:52.
    Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
    sigpic

    #2
    Re: Agnosticism Discussion

    I suppose I have always been one to reference encyclopedias and then boil the definition down to its barest parts.

    Agnosticism (as defined from Google): a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence"

    Essentially, in my line of thinking, agnosticism claims that there cannot be proof of god, or disproof of god. It leaves a sense of maybe and does not portend to have answers OR gods, though, in my experience, most agnostics believe in "something."

    I personally believe quite militantly that everyone, everywhere is wrong about god, religion and spirituality -- including myself. I do not believe that we will ever have "proof" that will sway me strongly in either direction but I firmly believe that there is "something." I suppose if I were to try and define what I like to allow myself to believe, it is much closer to panentheism than anything else currently described, though my prevailing belief is that I am probably wrong and full of shit.
    No one tells the wind which way to blow.

    Comment


      #3
      Re: Agnosticism Discussion

      Originally posted by thalassa View Post

      Robert Ingersoll's* "Why I am an Agnostic" (if you follow the link, you may have to navigate a wee bit to find it (and he has another titled "Gods")
      The cheap trick to bypass excess navigation (provided your browser accepts cookies and since you're not getting in without em, I'll assume it does) is to open the link in a second tab, agree to the disclaimer and then come back to PF and re-open the link. Once you have a cookie on your system saying you agree to the terms, their server won't redirect you to the disclaimer.

      This knowledge is random a** benefit of having just completed a course on interactive web pages and spending about thirty hours mutilating 15 pages of code till they did something new and different from their original purpose.
      life itself was a lightsaber in his hands; even in the face of treachery and death and hopes gone cold, he burned like a candle in the darkness. Like a star shining in the black eternity of space.

      Yoda: Dark Rendezvous

      "But those men who know anything at all about the Light also know that there is a fierceness to its power, like the bare sword of the law, or the white burning of the sun." Suddenly his voice sounded to Will very strong, and very Welsh. "At the very heart, that is. Other things, like humanity, and mercy, and charity, that most good men hold more precious than all else, they do not come first for the Light. Oh, sometimes they are there; often, indeed. But in the very long run the concern of you people is with the absolute good, ahead of all else..."

      John Rowlands, The Grey King by Susan Cooper

      "You come from the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve", said Aslan. "And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth; be content."

      Aslan, Prince Caspian by CS Lewis


      Comment


        #4
        Re: Agnosticism Discussion

        Originally posted by Bjorn View Post
        I suppose I have always been one to reference encyclopedias and then boil the definition down to its barest parts.

        Agnosticism (as defined from Google): a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God; "agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence"

        Essentially, in my line of thinking, agnosticism claims that there cannot be proof of god, or disproof of god. It leaves a sense of maybe and does not portend to have answers OR gods, though, in my experience, most agnostics believe in "something."

        I personally believe quite militantly that everyone, everywhere is wrong about god, religion and spirituality -- including myself. I do not believe that we will ever have "proof" that will sway me strongly in either direction but I firmly believe that there is "something." I suppose if I were to try and define what I like to allow myself to believe, it is much closer to panentheism than anything else currently described, though my prevailing belief is that I am probably wrong and full of shit.
        Doesn't that require some pretty huge assumptions? I certainly don't believe I'm even close to understanding the nature of divinity and the universe, but just because I don't doesn't mean there aren't people out there who, at the least, have a decent sized piece of the puzzle. If I don't know, then it follows logically that I also don't know whether anyone else does know. Believing that no human being, anywhere, ever, has known anything for sure about the spiritual/divine nature of the universe seems like just as big a leap of faith as believing blindly in a certain manifestation of divinity. It is, in itself, making a fairly huge claim about the nature of divinity - that nobody does or potentially can understand it. It's almost a paradox - if you don't understand something, how can you understand it enough to make the claim that nobody, ever, can understand it?

        Comment


          #5
          Re: Agnosticism Discussion

          Name me one person who knows a true fact about a god.
          Satan is my spirit animal

          Comment


            #6
            Re: Agnosticism Discussion

            Originally posted by Medusa View Post
            Name me one person who knows a true fact about a god.
            Sure, I'll go survey the 6 billion or so people currently sharing the planet with me, then I'll whip out my big bad book of necromancy and start summoning up everyone who has ever lived, one at a time, until I can confirm that nobody, ever, anywhere, has understood a single thing about the nature of divinity. I'll get back to ya in a couple decades

            It just doesn't follow - if you don't know something, then how can you know if anybody else knows it?

            Comment


              #7
              Re: Agnosticism Discussion

              Hey, look at the brand new and shiny 'Atheism and Agnosticism' board!

              I, ironically, agree that the exact nature of divinity is unknowable. I think that there are just far too many plausible theories out there for us to know exactly what is and isn't true. And given the sheer number of said theories, I think it's unlikely that we will ever know The Truth.

              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.

              When it comes to 'deities'... to me they are spirits, nothing more, nothing less. To me they are not the same thing as 'The Divine', 'The Great Spirit', 'The Omnipotent God' or whatever it is that you want to call it. They actually don't factor into the atheism-agnosticism-pantheism-panentheism spectrum for me, which seems to be an unusual sort of a theory. And again... I accept that I'm possibly wrong etc etc etc. But that's what I'm running with.

              So, bringing this back to the topic at hand. Is it possible to be agnostic and have a 'most plausible theory' that you swing towards? At what point does it stop being agnosticism, even if you have that 'I believe but I don't know' thing going on?

              Comment


                #8
                Re: Agnosticism Discussion

                So, bringing this back to the topic at hand. Is it possible to be agnostic and have a 'most plausible theory' that you swing towards? At what point does it stop being agnosticism, even if you have that 'I believe but I don't know' thing going on?
                I'd say I'm pretty close. I tend to think of God(s) in the sense of a working model. I believe it's pretty likely that something along those lines exists, based on my personal experience, I don't know exactly what it's nature is, although I do spend a fair bit of time thinking about it, and I do know that if I act in a certain way and do certain things, certain results will occur.

                It's the same with most occult and spiritual things. Take Qi Gong for example. I don't know if there is literally a life energy called 'Chi' flowing through my body and connecting me to the universe, but I do know that if I meditate in a certain posture, while breathing a certain way, I will have the subjective experience of the movement of some kind of energy through my body, I will experience the immediate physiological reactions (heat, sweating, tingling, twitching, etc. in the relevant parts of the body), and I will experience the desired benefits (improved mood, improved physical energy levels and alertness, improved physical health). The question of whether this is all caused by some all-pervading vital force, or whether it's a complex chain of psycho-somatic reactions, or some kind of effect as of yet completely unknown to us is an interesting one, but it's also beyond the point to a certain degree. I view God(s), for the most part, in the same way.

                2. In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth, and the
                Paths, of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres,
                Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist.
                It is immaterial whether they exist or not. By doing
                certain things certain results follow; students are most
                earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or
                philosophic validity to any of them.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Re: Agnosticism Discussion

                  Originally posted by Aeran View Post
                  Sure, I'll go survey the 6 billion or so people currently sharing the planet with me, then I'll whip out my big bad book of necromancy and start summoning up everyone who has ever lived, one at a time, until I can confirm that nobody, ever, anywhere, has understood a single thing about the nature of divinity. I'll get back to ya in a couple decades

                  It just doesn't follow - if you don't know something, then how can you know if anybody else knows it?
                  Next to the invention of white bread, I'm pretty sure if someone actually had proof, we'd have known. By now. Something SO BIG as a god surely would have one little bit of factual proof. Something. Anything.
                  Satan is my spirit animal

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Re: Agnosticism Discussion

                    Originally posted by Medusa View Post
                    Next to the invention of white bread, I'm pretty sure if someone actually had proof, we'd have known. By now. Something SO BIG as a god surely would have one little bit of factual proof. Something. Anything.




                    You can apply that same logic to anything. I'm sure at some stage in history said 'I'm sure if the Earth rotated around the sun, we'd know that.' 'I'm sure if diseases were caused by tiny microbes instead of bad humors, we'd know that.'

                    It's still making massive assumptions about the nature of divinity. not to mention being exceedingly anthropocentric and, imo, rather arrogant 'If I don't know about something, then obviously nobody else knows about it.' Come on. At the end of the day, you can't both claim that you know nothing about something and that nobody knows anything about it. To claim that something is impossible to possess knowledge of, you first need to possess knowledge of it yourself to be able to define why it is impossible to know.

                    If the history of the human race has proven anything, it's that the things people are sure about are frequently proven false, so imo it pays to stay aware of the possibilities and not allow beliefs to become set in stone without good reason.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Re: Agnosticism Discussion

                      Originally posted by Rae'ya View Post
                      Hey, look at the brand new and shiny 'Atheism and Agnosticism' board!

                      I, ironically, agree that the exact nature of divinity is unknowable. I think that there are just far too many plausible HYPOTHESES out there for us to know exactly what is and isn't true. And given the sheer number of said HYPOTHESES, I think it's unlikely that we will ever know The Truth.
                      ^fixed

                      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.

                      So, bringing this back to the topic at hand. Is it possible to be agnostic and have a 'most plausible theory' that you swing towards? At what point does it stop being agnosticism, even if you have that 'I believe but I don't know' thing going on?
                      Absolutely.

                      It stops being agnosticism when you think you know what is going on and stop the process of reason to "pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

                      I mean, there is only one thing anyone can know about divinity, and that's this--There is no such thing as an objective event, fact or state(ment) that one can make about a completely abstract idea that is entirely subjective. Period. The ultimate nature of god is unknowable. Anyone that acknowleges that (there's your "true fact" about god, Medusa ) is agnostic, whether or not they prefer to believe in X or Y, to practice A or B, etc.

                      Anything beyond that is hubris. Anything beyond the idea that "god is" (including the idea that "god is not
                      Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Re: Agnosticism Discussion

                        Originally posted by Medusa View Post
                        Name me one person who knows a true fact about a god.
                        God is spelled G-o-d.

                        What do I win?

                        - - - Updated - - -

                        Originally posted by Aeran View Post

                        You can apply that same logic to anything. I'm sure at some stage in history said 'I'm sure if the Earth rotated around the sun, we'd know that.' 'I'm sure if diseases were caused by tiny microbes instead of bad humors, we'd know that.'
                        Uhmmm... we DO know those things... there IS proof... does that mean the logic works?
                        Every moment of a life is a horrible tragedy, a slapstick comedy, dark nihilism, golden illumination, or nothing at all; depending on how we write the story we tell ourselves.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Re: Agnosticism Discussion

                          Originally posted by Medusa View Post
                          Name me one person who knows a true fact about a god.
                          I know many true facts about many gods. But I can't prove or demonstrate or reproduce any of them. Therein lies the rub.
                          I often wish that I had done drugs in the '70s. At least there'd be a reason for the flashbacks. - Rick the Runesinger

                          Blood and CountryTribe of my Tribe
                          Clan of my Clan
                          Kin of my Kin
                          Blood of my Blood



                          For the Yule was upon them, the Yule; and they quaffed from the skulls of the slain,
                          And shouted loud oaths in hoarse wit, and long quaffing swore laughing again.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Re: Agnosticism Discussion

                            Originally posted by Rick View Post
                            I know many true facts about many gods. But I can't prove or demonstrate or reproduce any of them. Therein lies the rub.
                            The relevant question, then, becomes "How do you know they are true?"

                            The easiest person to fool is always one's self. Everything from wishful thinking, to fear, to oddities of brain functioning conspire to make that so.
                            Every moment of a life is a horrible tragedy, a slapstick comedy, dark nihilism, golden illumination, or nothing at all; depending on how we write the story we tell ourselves.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Re: Agnosticism Discussion

                              Originally posted by Aeran View Post
                              You can apply that same logic to anything. I'm sure at some stage in history said 'I'm sure if the Earth rotated around the sun, we'd know that.' 'I'm sure if diseases were caused by tiny microbes instead of bad humors, we'd know that.'
                              AND, we know these things because we have evidence. Actual, physical data. We have the capacity to take a picture of the sun, to measure its relative position and the position of the other planets. We can predict future location of the planets based on a proposed trajectory. This is why we have a Law of Planetary Potion. In the case of planetary motion, we knew the planets moved, we knew where they went, and we had records of their motion, well before we had an idea of why and how. The same with germ theory. It took over 300 years of observation and experimentation to figure that one out...it required concerete data, about objectively observable phenomena.

                              Divinity is not a concrete, objectively observable phenomena...god is more like the miasma "theory" or the geocentric universe. Its the idea you have before you have an idea based on actual data.

                              That doesn't necessairly mean everyone is wrong, but it means that no one can actually know who is right, as the (lack of) data presents itself in the present time. (At least in terms of whether or not god/s exist and their nature and purpose...its plenty possible to test other ideas that religions have...infact, that's how we wound up with a heliocentric solar system after all)
                              Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of HistoryPagan Devotionals, because the wind and the rain is our Bible
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X