Agnostics

[Jebus]

Hoohoo

Caspian:

I can accept agnosticism as a philosophical position. I happen to think that it is an intellectually cowardly position, (but that's a discussion for another place)I believe it.

How so?

[Caspian]

My problem with agnosticism is this: Agnosticism is the position that we can never know with certainty whether there is a God or not. Which is fair. But we can also never know with certainty whether there is a spoon or not. We can never know for sure if our senses are trustworthy, we can never know for sure if reason is reliable. When it really comes down to it, we can never know anything for sure. But if we want to do anything in this world we need to decide to believe in something. If we want to have any intellectual life at all we need to decide to trust our senses or our reason or tradition or something.

Skepticism is philosophically valid, but it seems paralyzing to me. And at the root of that paralysis I find cowardice. I feel like that kind of skepticism is grounded on a fear of being wrong. But any intellectual work has the danger of being wrong. Intellectual honestly means that we need to be open to being corrected if our error is pointed out to us, but—to me—intellectual courage means that we can't just remain positionless in the mean time. Eventually, you need to believe something.

[suminonA]

My problem with agnosticism is this: Agnosticism is the position that we can never know with certainty whether there is a God or not. Which is fair. But we can also never know with certainty whether there is a spoon or not. We can never know for sure if our senses are trustworthy, we can never know for sure if reason is reliable. When it really comes down to it, we can never know anything for sure. But if we want to do anything in this world we need to decide to believe in something. If we want to have any intellectual life at all we need to decide to trust our senses or our reason or tradition or something.

I just want to observe that there is a “slight” difference between the two examples. The spoon, I can touch it and yell “it exists”

Therefore, I don’t mind religious agnosticism. But if you don’t trust your senses, than what are you going to trust?


A.

[Jebus]

So making assumptions is better than being skeptical?

We can never know for sure if our senses are trustworthy, we can never know for sure if reason is reliable.

But we assume that they are because we have some evidence to back it up. I have no evidence of the existance of God, other than the Faith of others, so why should I assume he exists?

[pooka]

Agnosticism isn't necessarily skepticism. It can be unreasoned hope despite a lack of what one considers evidence.

[the HiveQueen]

And at the root of that paralysis I find cowardice. I feel like that kind of skepticism is grounded on a fear of being wrong. But any intellectual work has the danger of being wrong. Intellectual honestly means that we need to be open to being corrected if our error is pointed out to us, but—to me—intellectual courage means that we can't just remain positionless in the mean time. Eventually, you need to believe something.

Why exactly is it wrong to be unsure? It's not necessarily a fear of being wrong, for me it's that I simply don't know what to think anymore. I went from believing completely in God to being an atheist, to being completely confused about my thoughts. Not seeing any tangible evidence, agnosticism made the most sense to me.

Another thing to chew over: my friend, who is an atheist, is always telling me that agnosticism is ridiculous because they're pretty much atheists, and that they make atheists seem ignorant when really, all atheists are agnostics. Now, I always thought that to be an atheist was to deny the existence of God absolutely. By that definition, I would say that many atheists are actually agnostics and don't know it.

[Taalcon]

For the record, I find claiming that "I don't know" is a very respectful and honest answer for someone who has not had convincing experience in either direction.

I think those who hold themselves as Agnostics in this view are to be respected, rather than degraded for not proclaiming a belief (or belief of lack) that they don't honestly hold as True.

[suminonA]

I agree, Taalcon.

In order to avoid further confusion, I was about to propose the term “dubitheism” (sticking a Latin prefix – “dubito ergo cogito” - to the Greek radical ) for those holding the “I don’t know” position.
As opposed to (strong) agnosticism, indecision is based on lack of proof, not on the inherent impossibility of knowing. And as opposed to (strong) atheism, it does accept that there might be a deity out there.

Yet, there are also flavours to it: It’s one thing not knowing because there was not enough proof found yet (while the search continues) and quite another not knowing because the matter is not important enough to search for more/conclusive proof. We could call “active dubitheism” the former case and “passive dubitheism” the latter.

So, we still don’t simplify the matter. Why would using “passive dubitheism” be better than “weak agnosticism” or “weak atheism” ?

A.

[zeroguy]

“dubito ergo cogito”

I don't know Latin, and I've never heard this phrase.... "I doubt, therefore I think"?

[wizzard]

“dubito ergo cogito”

I don't know Latin, and I've never heard this phrase.... "I doubt, therefore I think"?

The full phrase is dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum: "I doubt, therefore I think; I think, therefore I exist"

[suminonA]

Yes, or to quote a Descartes guy: "Dubito ergo cogito; cogito ergo sum; sum ergo Deus est".

Which amounts to: "I doubt therefore God exists".

A.

[the HiveQueen]

That's actually really interesting, because, even though I'm an agnostic, I grew up Jewish and I still go to synagogue on the high holy days. One of the things my rabbi is always telling us is that "doubt is an act of faith," but then again, this synagogue is so progressive it's not even part of the reform movement. It always seemed to me to be really interesting that faith doesn't matter so much in Judaism as it does in other religions.

[vendor]

this may sound really jacked up.... here it goes!
the Mind is the Interpretor. Without it's proper function, vibration would never be sound.
Remember that cliche riddle: if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? the answer is no. there is no Interpretor.
Our senses can be fooled. in cooking school the instructor fooled us all into thinking that Dr Pepper was root beer in a blind taste test. He proved that our senses are highly susceptible to suggestion.
I recommend that searching for something tangible should not be the goal. Tangible fails. it tricks. our senses are great, very accurate interpretations of reality, but they're still interpretations.

[suminonA]

I recommend that searching for something tangible should not be the goal. Tangible fails. it tricks. our senses are great, very accurate interpretations of reality, but they're still interpretations.

Ok, I agree that our senses can be “fooled”. ( aren't we all in The Matrix? ) But what is the alternative? Emotional feelings? Which ones?

Incidently, what should be the goal?

A.

[vendor]

I don't pretend to be the expert. I am relaying things I have learned from personal experience. emotion is many times more inaccurate than tangible things. the Spirit of God does not trick nor does it fail. Draw closer to God and you will be enlightened.

[suminonA]

Draw closer to God and you will be enlightened.

Can anyone tell me how one "draws closer" to a deity? Thanks.

A.

[vendor]

I'm not sure if you meant that question to show that you believe it's a circular argument or what. In case I was reading too much into what you wrote, I will try to help you out.

I don't know how thorough I am. If anyone else wants to add something....

Love is action. It requires work.

believe in God
pray often
believe His Word (holy scriptures)
repent often of your wrong doings (nobody's perfect!) -- make restitution
read/ponder scriptures often
give of your time and talents to help others

I believe that by doing these things you can grow closer to God.

[liquifiedrainbows]

My problem with agnosticism is this: Agnosticism is the position that we can never know with certainty whether there is a God or not. Which is fair. But we can also never know with certainty whether there is a spoon or not. We can never know for sure if our senses are trustworthy, we can never know for sure if reason is reliable. When it really comes down to it, we can never know anything for sure. But if we want to do anything in this world we need to decide to believe in something. If we want to have any intellectual life at all we need to decide to trust our senses or our reason or tradition or something.

Skepticism is philosophically valid, but it seems paralyzing to me. And at the root of that paralysis I find cowardice. I feel like that kind of skepticism is grounded on a fear of being wrong. But any intellectual work has the danger of being wrong. Intellectual honestly means that we need to be open to being corrected if our error is pointed out to us, but—to me—intellectual courage means that we can't just remain positionless in the mean time. Eventually, you need to believe something.

We can decide to believe in something, but also accept that life is about experience, change and modification. It is a journey and not something concrete and religions can be built around this. Thats the reason I think agnostisism is acceptable. It doesn't mean it is the only way people should go, but it is an understandable position and a position none the less.

[hive_king]

I don't pretend to be the expert. I am relaying things I have learned from personal experience. emotion is many times more inaccurate than tangible things. the Spirit of God does not trick nor does it fail. Draw closer to God and you will be enlightened.

You know, your statement that the spirit of god does not trick people flies in the face of the Bible.

[vendor]

the bible isn't perfect
any logical person knows that
but with the spirit of god, you could understand it for what it is supposed to be.

the bible was subject to many translations, there was over a thousand years to distort origional meanings. In some cases, I believe that parts were purposfully tampered with to fullfill selfish designs.

That's why Mormons push the book of mormon, because, according to them, it's complimentary scripture to the bible which wasn't subject to translation hazards.

[suminonA]

I'm not sure if you meant that question to show that you believe it's a circular argument or what. In case I was reading too much into what you wrote, I will try to help you out.

I don't know how thorough I am. If anyone else wants to add something....

Love is action. It requires work.

believe in God
pray often
believe His Word (holy scriptures)
repent often of your wrong doings (nobody's perfect!) -- make restitution
read/ponder scriptures often
give of your time and talents to help others

I believe that by doing these things you can grow closer to God.

vendor, it was a honest question, to see what do you mean by that. And you answered my question.

Now, if you don’t mind, I have more questions.

1) Do you think that the deity that you call “God” is the only one that exists? I mean, I’ve heard of many definitions and names of deities, with more or less followers on various continents.
2) What you describe as growing closer to that deity, I’ve heard about other (different) deities too. How do I know to which of them my actions would make me grow close to?
3) Do you think that the name and definition of the deity one believes in are important, or that “the good deeds” are the essential part?
4) Could someone do “the good deeds” even if there was no deity at all?

I’ll stop here for now, but there would certainly be more questions

A.

[Jebus]

Our senses can be fooled. in cooking school the instructor fooled us all into thinking that Dr Pepper was root beer in a blind taste test. He proved that our senses are highly susceptible to suggestion.

I've never had root beer or Dr. Pepper, but I imagine he'd have a harder time tricking you into thinking that orange juice was root beer. Your senses are still far and away the most reliable things going.

[hive_king]

So are you saying the part of the bible where the holy spirit fools and tricks people aren't true?

[Taalcon]

So are you saying the part of the bible where the holy spirit fools and tricks people aren't true?

I can't think of the references you're thinking of. Mind citing them?

[hive_king]

2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

1 Kings 22:23
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2 Chronicles 18:22
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.


I think they're more, but I don't have time to delve too deeply right now.

Oh, and you could see the Tower of Babel as God decieving people too.

[Hegemon]

I think that Jebus should have named this thread, "I don't think Caspian believes in Agnostics either"

or

"Caspian is not sure if agnostics exist"

I think it would be funnier that way.

[eriador]

Somehow, agnosticism doesn't makes sense to me as a long-term theological idea. Yes, it's fine for somebody who is mulling it all over to be confused, but eventually one has to make a decision. To me, people who identify as agnostics and haven't gotten around to making up their minds either don't believe in a diety and don't care to re-label themselves, or are lazy/cowards. I don't think making up your mind is that hard. Of course, it is impossible to say for certain whether or not there is a God, but everybody should be able to have enough faith (or balls) to make a decision one way or another. I was talking about this in the "I don't believe in Atheists" thread, and said that I have great amounts of faith, even though I don't believe in the existence of any supernatural being, because I have decided to embrace a view that can not be completely proven.

So what I'm trying to say is that agnostics may have a point in that it's impossible to know for sure one way or the other, but I think that everybody has it in them to make up their minds and make a leap of faith.

[hive_king]

So what I'm trying to say is that agnostics may have a point in that it's impossible to know for sure one way or the other, but I think that everybody has it in them to make up their minds and make a leap of faith.

But why should people have faith in some world-view?

[eriador]

I don't know.

But I agree with many religious leaders in that faith is really important.

[mr_thebrain]

yeah. faith is important. it gets the votes so that they can have some sort of power.

"it doesn't matter what you believe in as long as you believe in something."

pretty much pull any quote from the movie dogma.

[eriador]

I don't disagree with you that "faith" is a great way of getting religious people power, but I know that, for me, I need to be decided to be at peace, and the only way to be decided is to have faith.

[Jebus]

Somehow, agnosticism doesn't makes sense to me as a long-term theological idea. Yes, it's fine for somebody who is mulling it all over to be confused, but eventually one has to make a decision. To me, people who identify as agnostics and haven't gotten around to making up their minds either don't believe in a diety and don't care to re-label themselves, or are lazy/cowards. I don't think making up your mind is that hard. Of course, it is impossible to say for certain whether or not there is a God, but everybody should be able to have enough faith (or balls) to make a decision one way or another. I was talking about this in the "I don't believe in Atheists" thread, and said that I have great amounts of faith, even though I don't believe in the existence of any supernatural being, because I have decided to embrace a view that can not be completely proven.

So what I'm trying to say is that agnostics may have a point in that it's impossible to know for sure one way or the other, but I think that everybody has it in them to make up their minds and make a leap of faith.

But I don't want to make a leap of faith just for the heck of it, I see no reason for it. If I did do it, I would just be being untrue to myself by commiting to something I don't wholly believe in. I don't know why Agnosticism seems to generate this kind of attitude from both sides of the fence, as if being undecided can not be a proper answer. You say "eventually one has to make a decision" and you're not the only one, but no one ever explains why a decision must be made. I feel completely content to spend the rest of my life undecided.

[eriador]

Well, I understand what you're saying and can respect it, but I disagree.

Let's agree to disagree. I personally don't understand agnosticism, but I see where agnostics are coming from.

[Matty]

eriador,

Somehow, agnosticism doesn't makes sense to me as a long-term theological idea. Yes, it's fine for somebody who is mulling it all over to be confused, but eventually one has to make a decision.

So you accept that it's perhaps a good idea to think about which metaphysical paradigm (to be as broad as possible) is true for a certain amount of time before coming to a decision. The problem is, "a certain amount of time" can mean anything. What guarantees are there that that time is less than a human lifetime? Indeed, it is very likely that it is much longer, given that in every other intellectual field, advances are made painfully over many centuries.

So even if you make the huge assumption that a definitive Answer will eventually be reached (say, in seven and a half million years), the fact remains that everyone living before the lucky generation will have to make do with a "temporary agnosticism" for their entire lives. Yes?

[eriador]

Good point.


However, it's all about intention. If you intend to come to a decision, yes, it is acceptable to be agnostic for your entire life, as long as you are truly thinking about it. However, just saying "I'm an agnostic" and thinking nothing more of it an intellectually cowardly position.

What I was really trying to say was that it was okay if you were still thinking, but not as your final decision on religious philosophy.