Agnosticism Discussion

[Aeran]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Uhmmm... we DO know those things... there IS proof... does that mean the logic works?

My point is that our understanding of reality, both individually and as a society, is constantly shifting. The truths of one year are the outdated theories of the next. The idea that something can't be potentially true because we don't already know it is absurd to the point of being laughable if you look at the history of our constantly shifting and evolving understanding of reality. But I suspect you're being a tad facetious.

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)

The problem with this is that the idea of God(s) changes radically depending on who you're speaking to, which is why I've tried to avoid turning this into a discussion about whether God actually does or doesn't exist, because honestly I just don't know (although I lean towards, and primarily live my life on the assumption of, God's existence). What I do know is that claim that it is impossible to know anything about the nature of God is oxymoronic, and that our understanding of reality is constantly altering to replace old truths with new ones.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

But I suspect you're being a tad facetious.

Kind of, but not really.

The problem with gods is that - usually by definition - they exist (if they exist) outside of the comprehensible physics of the universe. Since they are not subject to physical laws, they either do not leave physical traces, or they don't leave reliable physical traces - unlike the earth, sun, and germs.

What cannot be examined can not be known - with any degree of certainty.

[Rick]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

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.

Precisely. Truth is not relative, but observation (more precisely, interpretation of observation) is.

[Aeran]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Kind of, but not really.

The problem with gods is that - usually by definition - they exist (if they exist) outside of the comprehensible physics of the universe. Since they are not subject to physical laws, they either do not leave physical traces, or they don't leave reliable physical traces - unlike the earth, sun, and germs.

What cannot be examined can not be known - with any degree of certainty.

While you're correct that God cannot, in most understandings of the word, be put under a microscope, I don't think this is enough to rule something out from existing. There are plenty of things which cannot be put under a microscope, yet very few people would deny the existence of. Take thoughts for example - they exist only in their impact on the physical world and in our own personal experience of them, and yet because that impact is so visible, and because all of us experience them, we don't for a second deny their existence. So clearly an immaterial phenomenon can be held to exist, it's just a question of how many people have to directly experience it or observe it's effects until it is commonly accepted.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Take thoughts for example - they exist only in their impact on the physical world and in our own personal experience of them, and yet because that impact is so visible, and because all of us experience them, we don't for a second deny their existence. So clearly an immaterial phenomenon can be held to exist...

Actually, thoughts are the result of a whole series of bio-electrical events going on in the brain/body, and are pretty well studied, scientifically....

It's not a matter of denying the existence of things that can't be proved - it's the inability to say anything even remotely sensible about anything that produces no evidence that's troublesome.

Possibly there is a non-material purple unicorn somewhere that does not interact with matter, or leave any evidence of it's existence, but... what of it?

[Ula]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

I don't view the gods as being something scientific or measurable. It's like asking someone what a painting makes them feel then saying prove it. Other than for me to tell you I can't prove my feelings for a painting or a sunset. Agnostics haven't closed the door completely and call themselves atheist so some kind of experience keeps them open to the possibility.

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

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?

I think it's a greater assumption to assume humans are capable of understanding something we cannot prove. A person's subjective experience doesn't mean a damn thing. Stories don't provide evidence.

[Aeran]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Actually, thoughts are the result of a whole series of bio-electrical events going on in the brain/body, and are pretty well studied, scientifically....

In a neurological sense, in terms of which thought trigger which areas of the brain and so on, yes, but not in a phenomenological sense.

Possibly there is a non-material purple unicorn somewhere that does not interact with matter, or leave any evidence of it's existence, but... what of it?

Then you wouldn't believe in the purple unicorn without any evidence. But what if you personally experienced it, or knew and trusted people who claim to have done so? The core of any system of mysticism is that God can be experienced firsthand. The problem being that the majority of people aren't suited for spending a few decades meditating on a mountain - so belief has to be based on either first hand experience, or on either trust or faith, as with any other thing which doesn't have a physical existence. Certainly it would be valid to not believe if you had no direct experience, no supporting experience and no trust in anybody who had, I totally understand that point of view and, until certain experiences I had (fairly recently in the scheme of things), I held it myself. I'm not going to tell anyone to believe on faith when I can't manage it myself, but I think it's sad when people can't at least keep an open mind to the idea.

[thalassa]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Then you wouldn't believe in the purple unicorn without any evidence. But what if you personally experienced it, or knew and trusted people who claim to have done so? The core of any system of mysticism is that God can be experienced firsthand. The problem being that the majority of people aren't suited for spending a few decades meditating on a mountain - so belief has to be based on either first hand experience, or on either trust or faith, as with any other thing which doesn't have a physical existence. Certainly it would be valid to not believe if you had no direct experience, no supporting experience and no trust in anybody who had, I totally understand that point of view and, until certain experiences I had (fairly recently in the scheme of things), I held it myself. I'm not going to tell anyone to believe on faith when I can't manage it myself, but I think it's sad when people can't at least keep an open mind to the idea.

What the brain can fool itself into thinking is quite amazing, actually. And no, I wouldn't believe in a purple unicorn without evidence, even if I experienced it. Just as I don't "believe in" the deities that I choose to worship on the basis of my experiences.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Then you wouldn't believe in the purple unicorn without any evidence. But what if you personally experienced it, or knew and trusted people who claim to have done so?

I would be obligated to wonder if my experience were accurate, and/or if the experience of those I trusted was accurate. If there is no evidence...?

..as with any other thing which doesn't have a physical existence.

In a physical world, do things without physical existence exist? And, if so, in what way can they exist? I still have trouble with that...

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

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

Ok, firstly, you cannot get away with being snide by adding an emoticon. We are here to discuss civilly and sharpen our mental blades against each other so stop being condescending and use some tact before a mod shuts this thread down due to rudeness. I enjoy argument, but I do not appreciate 1. your delivery and 2. that you feel the need to snub your nose at this thread for being what it is -- AGNOSTIC.

Step up your game.

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

Because humans are limited. Not just me, but all of us. There is simply no way to prove the existence of god because god is not tangible -- how are you going to measure god, with a device? No. You believe or disbelieve something for any number of reasons, one of which is experience. One person's collective experience does not act as evidence -- hell, even a thousand people's shared experience is still not moving enough. It's like going to an evangelical church and claiming that these healing miracles are proof of god just because they have power in numbers -- human experience does not mean anything in the grand scope of things. It is SUBJECTIVE, and therefore up for scrutiny. Sure, you can claim that you were touched by an angel, or that Athena visited you in a dream, that god has answered your prayers but that doesn't mean that it happened. It only means that you had an experience that you interpreted a certain way.

It's not evidence. It's storytelling. I'm sure many believe what they're saying, but it's not good enough for me.

- - - Updated - - -

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

But see...no, you don't. You know your experience of gods but that does not mean they exist (or that they don't). It is not proof. They are not facts. It is, as Thal said, hubris to assume otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

My point is that our understanding of reality, both individually and as a society, is constantly shifting. The truths of one year are the outdated theories of the next. The idea that something can't be potentially true because we don't already know it is absurd to the point of being laughable if you look at the history of our constantly shifting and evolving understanding of reality. But I suspect you're being a tad facetious.

You derived that "we can't know it because we don't already" from what I said? I'm not going to rifle through old posts but allow me to clarify: I simply mean that we cannot ever truly know about god. It's unknowable.

- - - Updated - - -

...Take thoughts for example - they exist only in their impact on the physical world and in our own personal experience of them, and yet because that impact is so visible, and because all of us experience them, we don't for a second deny their existence. So clearly an immaterial phenomenon can be held to exist, it's just a question of how many people have to directly experience it or observe it's effects until it is commonly accepted.

You can see how thoughts highlight certain areas of the brain with certain machines (I forget the name but I know it's possible). Therefore, thoughts CAN exist in the material world we just can't see them.

[Aeran]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

What the brain can fool itself into thinking is quite amazing, actually. And no, I wouldn't believe in a purple unicorn without evidence, even if I experienced it. Just as I don't "believe in" the deities that I choose to worship on the basis of my experiences.

I would be obligated to wonder if my experience were accurate, and/or if the experience of those I trusted was accurate. If there is no evidence...?

Completely valid points, certainly you'd hope people would wonder about the accuracy of their experiences, but the potential for delusion doesn't necessitate writing off every single experience as such. It's just something that has to be evaluated personally on a case by case basis.

Ok, firstly, you cannot get away with being snide by adding an emoticon. We are here to discuss civilly and sharpen our mental blades against each other so stop being condescending and use some tact before a mod shuts this thread down due to rudeness. I enjoy argument, but I do not appreciate 1. your delivery and 2. that you feel the need to snub your nose at this thread for being what it is -- AGNOSTIC.

I wasn't being snide. Maybe a bit flippant, but no rudeness was intended. You're being overly sensitive, especially considering the comment wasn't even addressed at you and the one who it was addressed at didn't seem upset by it. And how am I snubbing this thread? By actively participating in it? By repeatedly affirming my believe that agnosticism is a completely reasonable stance to adopt in many circumstances? Stop projecting your own disdain for people who believe onto me, I have a philosophical objection to your particular stance, but no issue with agnosticism as a whole.

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

I wasn't being snide. Maybe a bit flippant, but no rudeness was intended. You're being overly sensitive, especially considering the comment wasn't even addressed at you and the one who it was addressed at didn't seem upset by it. And how am I snubbing this thread? By actively participating in it? By repeatedly affirming my believe that agnosticism is a completely reasonable stance to adopt in many circumstances? Stop projecting your own disdain for people who believe onto me, I have a philosophical objection to your particular stance, but no issue with agnosticism as a whole.

I have no disdain for people who believe differently than me, only those who claim to have answers. Overly sensitive? No. I was warned on the original inception that this could be altered based on the way people behave in here so I want civility, it is all I asked for. Replying by throwing the blame on me is derailing this thread and I will reply on this matter no further.

Your activity on this thread excites me because I believe militantly, and you disagree (seeing as how I already stated to enjoy argument). Let us begin there.

[Aeran]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

I have no disdain for people who believe differently than me

You've said things that suggest otherwise, but in the interest of not derailing your thread, let's leave it there.

Your activity on this thread excites me because I believe militantly, and you disagree (seeing as how I already stated to enjoy argument). Let us begin there.

Begin what? I've already said that I believe only because of experience, that I wouldn't believe without it, and that I don't think it's reasonable to expect most people to believe based on trust or faith (although apparently many do - no idea how). I can't convince you with my experiences, and you obviously don't have your own or we wouldn't be having this discussion, and so even though I personally believe, I think your lack of belief is fairly rational given your situation, and I held a similar lack of belief in the same situation.

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Begin what? I've already said that I believe only because of experience, that I wouldn't believe without it, and that I don't think it's reasonable to expect most people to believe based on trust or faith (although apparently many do - no idea how).

Begin where? I have gathered that you think that it is possible to know the existence of god. I'd like to know how. I'd like you to expound on this.

I can't convince you with my experiences, and you obviously don't have your own or we wouldn't be having this discussion, and so even though I personally believe, I think your lack of belief is fairly rational given your situation, and I held a similar lack of belief in the same situation.

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.