What is the point of your agnosticism?

brianthebard

OK sorry I couldn't come up with a better title. It seems to me that agnostics are less likely to close the door to possibilities, in the way that either very religious or very atheistic people are. So firstly, what brought you to the conclusion that you are agnostic? (Yes I'm aware there may be some overlap between that and the defining moment thread). More importantly though, do you still investigate different types of faith and philosophy? Do you feel that you just haven't found the right one yet, or that there's no right or wrong faith and you might as well not believe as believe?

Personally I stopped caring about what the Catholic church thought about certain issues and saw the huge contradictions and hypocrisy in the church, and lost faith in organised religion as a result. For a while I didn't think about it one way of the other, but the last year or so I have been looking into different philosophies, specifically ones that aren't highly centralised or dogmatic like catholicism, and that allow a person to pursue their own path to knowledge. So to that effect I've read some texts on Taoism, and plan to look into the Society of Friends (Quakers) once I find a good book on the topic.

Dave!

Related question for people: agnostics, if I understand correctly, believe that it is not possible to know whether a god exists. But what if one does NOT necessarily believe it's impossible to know -- but is merely unsure themselves? What's the term for that?

Because in my experience most people who call themselves agnostic are more the latter than the former.

Maybe I'm just confused.

Sorry to hijack the thread!

sink

I've always been agnostic as I feel I'm more open to the idea that there is a creator than most atheists. I still think it's highly unlikely and it's probably impossible for us to ever know. I am certain that if such a creator exists it is not concerned with human issues. I'm also not anti-religious like a lot of atheists because I know many people who gain great comfort through their religion. I am anti anti-intellectuals like creationists but they are a tiny minority and I can't say I've ever met one outside of the internet. Humans are social beings and religion provides a social cohesion which adds worth and purpose to many peoples lives. Atheism and agnosticism are unfortunately lacking in the same sort of social grouping.

What I suppose I long for is a humanist church without the requirement for any divine beliefs but instead a belief in the logical moral worth of mankind and moral society.

brianthebard

Dave! wrote: »

Related question for people: agnostics, if I understand correctly, believe that it is not possible to know whether a god exists. But what if one does NOT necessarily believe it's impossible to know -- but is merely unsure themselves? What's the term for that?

Because in my experience most people who call themselves agnostic are more the latter than the former.

Maybe I'm just confused.

Sorry to hijack the thread!

Well agnosticism is quite a broad church (sorry!) and if people want to call themselves agnostics because they are unsure of themselves, rather than uncertain christians/jews/etc, I think thats more honest and ok than being part of a religion for the sake of it.

sink wrote: »

I've always been agnostic as I feel I'm more open to the idea that there is a creator than most atheists. I still think it's highly unlikely and it's probably impossible for us to ever know. I am certain that if such a creator exists it is not concerned with human issues. I'm also not anti-religious like a lot of atheists because I know many people who gain great comfort through their religion. I am anti anti-intellectuals like creationists but they are a tiny minority and I can't say I've ever met one outside of the internet. Humans are social beings and religion provides a social cohesion which adds worth and purpose to many peoples lives. Atheism and agnosticism are unfortunately lacking in the same sort of social grouping.

What I suppose I long for is a humanist church without the requirement for any divine beliefs but instead a belief in the logical moral worth of mankind and moral society.

This is why I'm interested in SF, because there is a huge mix of people and faiths within the society. It is even possible to be a atheist quaker afaik. There is no demand for one core dogma, people are free to choose what they believe, but have the framework and support of other friends to help them.

AtomicHorror

I would say that it is impossible to test the existence of God as described by Christians, and any other religion in which the creator is omnipotent. Such a creator could make the world appear exactly as though he didn't exist, could falsify any and all possible observations. So the great God is untestable by definition. Lesser Gods are another story though. I'm relatively confident that I can make a positive statement of their non-existence on Earth. I've seen inside trees, there are no Dryads. I've seen pictures of the highest mountain peaks and seen no Greek Gods.

Zillah

There's different kinds of agnostics. Traditionally it refers to one who is unsure about the existence of God. I've heard it described as "open to conversion". There's a variety that insist concluding anything is impossible.

Wikipedia article goes into pretty good detail if I recall.

Dave147

Dave! wrote: »

Related question for people: agnostics, if I understand correctly, believe that it is not possible to know whether a god exists. But what if one does NOT necessarily believe it's impossible to know -- but is merely unsure themselves? What's the term for that?

Because in my experience most people who call themselves agnostic are more the latter than the former.

Maybe I'm just confused.

Sorry to hijack the thread!

Not hijacking the thread at all imo, it's a good question. I'm agnostic I suppose, I usually rather not get into a big story about why I am such or what exactly I am.. I don't like to label myself but it's convenient. So what I do believe (ironic) is that it's impossible for us to know if there is a God/Creator, so if I'm open to conversion as someone said but already firmly believe it's impossible to know, then how can I be converted. It's a bit of a catch 22, I don't know what the latter is, I'm not unsure of myself, the only thing I'm unsure of is what every religious person won't admit to.

Basically the principle of my 'religion' is it's completely impossible to prove any of it.

@Sink, that was a great post!

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

There's different kinds of agnostics.

Yeah, "agnostic" seems even less well defined than atheist. I think a lot of the problem is that the term "God" is so ridiculous ill defined that it makes it hard to figure out what is or is not an agnostic.

For example, based on Sink's post, I would classify him/her as an atheist. He is open to the idea that something created the universe, but to me that doesn't make one an agnostic. He is certain that it is not concerned with human affairs which, rules out the vast majority of human gods as being that creator. That to me makes him atheist.

To be an agnostic one has to be open to the idea that one of the human religious concept of "God" or a god, created the universe. A vague acceptance that something may have created the universe is pretty much atheist in my book if one thinks that what ever this thing could be it isn't what humans on Earth think.

Zillah

I would describe Sink as agnostic leaning Deist. Though clearly his Deism is not much of an issue for him.

Dave147

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah, "agnostic" seems even less well defined than atheist. I think a lot of the problem is that the term "God" is so ridiculous ill defined that it makes it hard to figure out what is or is not an agnostic.

For example, based on Sink's post, I would classify him/her as an atheist. He is open to the idea that something created the universe, but to me that doesn't make one an agnostic. He is certain that it is not concerned with human affairs which, rules out the vast majority of human gods as being that creator. That to me makes him atheist.

To be an agnostic one has to be open to the idea that one of the human religious concept of "God" or a god, created the universe. A vague acceptance that something may have created the universe is pretty much atheist in my book if one thinks that what ever this thing could be it isn't what humans on Earth think.

Interesting, I never thought about it like that.. Still labelling myself as agnostic is convenient, I don't like to call myself atheist because I don't actively believe that there is no god. I simply don't know and don't want to spend my life worrying about it. I don't think Sink is atheist either because there is no 'human' god as such, a creator and god are the same thing, they are higher powers that created us (this assuming there is one). So he doesn't necessarily have to be open to the fact that one religion is correct.

Apologies if my posts and thoughts are coming off as slightly incoherent but it's 6.20am here and I haven't slept yet!

sink

Zillah wrote: »

I would describe Sink as agnostic leaning Deist. Though clearly his Deism is not much of an issue for him.

I would say I'm more of an deist leaning agnostic. Or to put it another way an agnostic who is receptive of deism but does not believe.

anti-venom

brianthebard wrote: »

OK sorry I couldn't come up with a better title. It seems to me that agnostics are less likely to close the door to possibilities, in the way that either very religious or very atheistic people are. So firstly, what brought you to the conclusion that you are agnostic? (Yes I'm aware there may be some overlap between that and the defining moment thread). More importantly though, do you still investigate different types of faith and philosophy? Do you feel that you just haven't found the right one yet, or that there's no right or wrong faith and you might as well not believe as believe?

Personally I stopped caring about what the Catholic church thought about certain issues and saw the huge contradictions and hypocrisy in the church, and lost faith in organised religion as a result. For a while I didn't think about it one way of the other, but the last year or so I have been looking into different philosophies, specifically ones that aren't highly centralised or dogmatic like catholicism, and that allow a person to pursue their own path to knowledge. So to that effect I've read some texts on Taoism, and plan to look into the Society of Friends (Quakers) once I find a good book on the topic.

Personally I don't see that atheism is closing the door on possibilities. It is more like closing the door on impossibilities. Just because something like god or heaven can't be disproved doesn't mean one has to entertain any possibility that it might exist.

Zombrex

Dave147 wrote: »

a creator and god are the same thing, they are higher powers that created us (this assuming there is one).

Not really. For example if a million years from now a human builds a machine that creates the universe in some kind of Star Trek infinate time loop we wouldn't consider him to be a "god"

God is a mythological concept, it means more than simply creator. It implies worship and interest on his part. Ultimately it is a very silly concept when one starts to think about it, it is defined more by what it offers humans than any actual mapping to a real thing. Gods are there to provide you with things and explanations. Once one starts thinking of a creator as simply an alien intelligence, even a super powerful one, apply the term "god" to that seems silly.

Dave147 wrote: »

Apologies if my posts and thoughts are coming off as slightly incoherent but it's 6.20am here and I haven't slept yet!

Good God man go to bed, this isn't worth losing sleep over. We will expect you up at 9am your time to continue this discussion :pac:

Sonderval

As mentioned, the exceptionally loose definition of what a god encompasses is my issue. Do I believe in the deity described in the Bible? Not at all.

Do I deny the existence of higher ecologies of life that would appear god-like to us humans (in the same way we would appear to an ant)? Nope, I'd say its probable, considering the scale of the universe.

Thus I lump myself in the agnostic category Its a rather widely spanning category!

Zombrex

anti-venom wrote: »

Personally I don't see that atheism is closing the door on possibilities. It is more like closing the door on impossibilities. Just because something like god or heaven can't be disproved doesn't mean one has to entertain any possibility that it might exist.

Yeah, I see atheism not as statements that something doesn't exist. I've no idea what does or does not exist out there. It is a rejection of the idea that other humans have some how discovered what exists. They haven't, what they believe is imaginary.

An analogy I often use is a box. Someone says "There is an apple in that box", and I say "Don't be silly, you can't possibly know this"

I'm not saying there isn't an apple in the box. I'm not saying anything about what is or is not in the box. I've no idea if there is or not. I can't say that there is or is not something in the box, but I can say that the other person can't say this either.

What I'm saying is that the person beside me has no clue. They are just making stuff up. My assertions, my rejection, is centered around the person making the claim, not the box.

To me that is what atheism is.

I'm not saying anything about the formation of the universe. I'm not saying something did or did not do anything.

I'm saying that the religious people who claim to know the answers, who claim to be able to assert facts about it, don't have a clue.

And by extension an agnostic is someone who believes that the believers may be on to something, that the person may know that there is an apple in the box. That is the important bit, not that there may or may not be an apple in the box, but that the person may know that there is an apple in the box.

Malari

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah, I see atheism not as statements that something doesn't exist. I've no idea what does or does not exist out there. It is a rejection of the idea that other humans have some how discovered what exists. They haven't, what they believe is imaginary.

An analogy I often use is a box. Someone says "There is an apple in that box", and I say "Don't be silly, you can't possibly know this"

I'm not saying there isn't an apple in the box. I'm not saying anything about what is or is not in the box. I've no idea if there is or not. I can't say that there is or is not something in the box, but I can say that the other person can't say this either.

What I'm saying is that the person beside me has no clue. They are just making stuff up. My assertions, my rejection, is centered around the person making the claim, not the box.

To me that is what atheism is.

I'm not saying anything about the formation of the universe. I'm not saying something did or did not do anything.

I'm saying that the religious people who claim to know the answers, who claim to be able to assert facts about it, don't have a clue.

And by extension an agnostic is someone who believes that the believers may be on to something, that the person may know that there is an apple in the box. That is the important bit, not that there may or may not be an apple in the box, but that the person may know that there is an apple in the box.

That's a pretty good analogy. It kind of side-steps a lot of the linguistic knots that you can get tied in.

But I think it's more like a...blue banana in the box. As in, no one has yet had any evidence of a blue banana in the natural world as we know it so far, so why believe that it's a blue banana, OR be open to the possibility that it's a blue banana, when it's likely to be something far more ordinary.

pH

Zillah wrote: »

I would describe Sink as agnostic leaning Deist. Though clearly his Deism is not much of an issue for him.

Surely a Deist is an atheist?

If we take the word theist to mean someone who believes in a personal intervening God (or Gods) as found in Christianity etc. and take atheist to mean simply someone who is not a theist - I.e. does not believe in personal intervening God, then both deists and agnostics are atheists.

Someone needs to draw a Venn diagram and sort this all out.

Zombrex

Malari wrote: »

That's a pretty good analogy. It kind of side-steps a lot of the linguistic knots that you can get tied in.

But I think it's more like a...blue banana in the box. As in, no one has yet had any evidence of a blue banana in the natural world as we know it so far, so why believe that it's a blue banana, OR be open to the possibility that it's a blue banana, when it's likely to be something far more ordinary.

Even that, to me, focuses too much on the question of what is in the box, rather than on the question does the person who just told me there is a blue banana in the box know what he is talking about

It doesn't really matter if a blue banana can exist in the box if the person doesn't have a clue.

anti-venom

Wicknight wrote: »

Even that, to me, focuses too much on the question of what is in the box, rather than on the question does the person who just told me there is a blue banana in the box know what he is talking about

It doesn't really matter if a blue banana can exist in the box if the person doesn't have a clue.

Yes, but can you realistically allow for the possibility of a naturally blue banana?

Zombrex

anti-venom wrote: »

Yes, but can you realistically allow for the possibility of a naturally blue banana?

Yes, though this is some what going away from the original analogy (it would depend on the box, who placed the item in it, etc etc).

When discussing the origin of the universe I can realistically allow for a large number of things, including the idea that an unknown extra-universal intelligence created the universe for some purpose. I see no reason to believe that is the case, but equally no reason to say that it is an impossibility.

Malari

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, though this is some what going away from the original analogy (it would depend on the box, who placed the item in it, etc etc).

When discussing the origin of the universe I can realistically allow for a large number of things, including the idea that an unknown extra-universal intelligence created the universe for some purpose. I see no reason to believe that is the case, but equally no reason to say that it is an impossibility.

I see your point, I think I'm making an adjunct to that when I talk about a blue banana. It's the probability as opposed to the possibility of one existing.

brianthebard

anti-venom wrote: »

Yes, but can you realistically allow for the possibility of a naturally blue banana?

You are aware of the black swan argument right? Because thats the path you are going down atm, which is something different to what wicknight is saying.

Zillah

pH wrote: »

Surely a Deist is an atheist?

If we take the word theist to mean someone who believes in a personal intervening God (or Gods) as found in Christianity etc. and take atheist to mean simply someone who is not a theist - I.e. does not believe in personal intervening God, then both deists and agnostics are atheists.

Someone needs to draw a Venn diagram and sort this all out.

Yes that works for our discussion, but traditionally a Theist is one who believes in any variety of God, even a non-interventionist God. So by the usual definitions a Deist is actually a variety of Theist.

c0y0te

Personally I compare religions to unions... I can see the need for such organised structures and guidence for 'some' people, but it's not for me.

I'm probably classed as agnostic because I don't know if a god exists or not, but more importantly I don't particularly care either way because it has no relevance to me in the here and now, and I'm not bothered about the 'after' and whether or not there is one.

In this context, just like a union, I've never been a member of a union and I will never join one because I prefer to make my own mind up about everything and fight my own battles. However, I recognise the right for unions to exist for those people who want/need that kind of protection and direction.

Religions to me are exactly like that. I don't favour one over another, in fact they all look the same to me, and if they all just got on with things instead of veering into the fundamentalism and assuming their way is better than their neighbours way it would be fine. But unfortunately the world doesn't work that way and there are fundamentalist nutters within pretty much every organised religion trying to convert/dominate/eradicate the competition.

So - for me agnostics are typically pragmatic people, usually realists who deal in facts when possible but also - guilty as charged - possibly lazy gits too who just can't be arsed picking a religion because they don't care either way.

Zillah

c0y0te wrote: »

In this context, just like a union, I've never been a member of a union and I will never join one because I prefer to make my own mind up about everything and fight my own battles.

Thats a very odd thing to say. Unions are awesome for everyone except asshole bosses.

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

Unions are awesome for everyone except asshole bosses.

Er, have you ever worked in a large company with a large union?

Zillah

No, I'm mostly basing this on history :pac:

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

No

Thought so

KnifeWRENCH

I don't know how to classify myself.

I can't really call myself a Catholic anymore because I disagree with too many of the Church's views. I'm not an athiest because I firmly believe that there is a higher power and an afterlife. I know that I cannot prove that there is a God or an afterlife, yet I choose to believe in it.
Does that make me agnostic? I don't think it does because afaik agnostics would not hold any "firm beliefs" (or am I wrong in saying that?)

Is there a label for someone like me? :pac:

Zillah

square_igloo wrote: »

I firmly believe that there is a higher power and an afterlife. I know that I cannot prove that there is a God or an afterlife, yet I choose to believe in it...Is there a label for someone like me?

Deluded?

More specifically you're a wishy washy theist. Or a Christian depending on just how much of Catholicism you disagree with.

c0y0te

To clarify - I think unions exist because people feel the need for them, but their role is not for everyone (not just bosses).

I've actually been asked by unions (in the past) to help arbitrate between them and management down at the labour courts because I was trusted by both sides.

I guess the real point of comparison that I'm trying to make is that people created unions for a reason, but it's not a "one size fits all" kind of deal. People also created religions for the same reason. They are manufactured at the end of the day and as long as they remain optional I don't have any problems at all with it.

In fact - if you want to worship a rock or believe in little green aliens instead - that's ok by me too. Just as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on me or anyone else (ie fundamentalism).