Agnostic - The wisest option for man?

[lezardo]

Originally posted by phlogistician

"Nobody _knows_ that god exists, those that do believe have _faith_, not _proof_ or _knowledge_. Therefore, strictly everybody is an agnostic (and therefore the term fails to differentiate sides in any debate) or the term is merely used for people who don't know their own mind.

But many theists and antitheists do "know" that they are correct. At least judging by some of the things they say, they don't seem to doubt their position in the slightest. An agnostic at least admits that you can't be sure

 

[Sarkus]

My personal journey is one of reasoning.

A summarised version;
I cannot accept we are matter that lives through chemical reaction alone.
I find myself with no morals there - I cannot find specialness in life.
I cannot accept that all life is seperate and contained within matter.
I therefore believe there is a greater part to humanity, such as - soul / spirit / higher conscienceness / global conscienceness.
This then leads me to the possibility that if we have spirit then there may be other spiritual entities in existence.
And this leads me to the possibilty some form of god exists.

I follow your reasoning, Light Travelling. While I feel pretty much the same way, I'm just not sure that my feelings are justification for a belief in a higher power.

Then again, I don't think one could write off all of the "supernatural" experiences claimed by people over the centuries as lies, hallucinations or some misunderstood natural occurrences. But then again, maybe one could!

At any rate, deism is something I plan to take a closer look at, sounds interesting.

Also be careful that your search doesn't lead you to treat merely an alien life form as "god".

 

[phlogistician]

Ah. Atheists do not so much lack belief in God, as much as they hate and fear the idea that there should be one.

Surely, needing an afterlife and a supernatural protector shows who has fear.

Atheists are happy to live, and die, and there be nothing but oblivion.

 

[phlogistician]

But many theists and antitheists do "know" that they are correct. At least judging by some of the things they say, they don't seem to doubt their position in the slightest. An agnostic at least admits that you can't be sure

Nobody can know, they can strongly assert themselves sure, but their subjective experiences really aren't to be trusted. So agnosticism I think is more about not knowing your own mind, than anything larger.

 

[Light Travelling]

Also be careful that your search doesn't lead you to treat merely an alien life form as "god".

Are you saying that a valid reason for being atheist is as a safety measure to prevent accidentally calling an alien life form God.

If the creator of human life / universe were an alien life form, would that not still make it God. A rose by any other name etc

Or, does that just not fit your idea of what god should be - even though you dont believe in god, you obviously have an opinion on what god is.

 

[lezardo]

Originally Posted by phlogistician
So agnosticism I think is more about not knowing your own mind, than anything larger.

But I don't see how to rationalize any other position. In the end, every other world view requires faith.

I've considered the agnostic stance for a while and stand by it. I know very well how I reached it. It's the only position that reason, in my opinion, will allow. I do agree with what you said on an earlier post, about strictly speaking, everybody could be classified as agnostic. I just think that if everyone acknowledged that, than fundamentalism could be avoided altogether, and the world could be spared a lot of grief.

Agnosticism should, in my opinion, at least be the starting point to one's search for answers to the "big" questions, as opposed to blind belief in the religion of one's parents or society, or of some guru promising whatever.




Off topic here: I've followed your posts a lot on these forums, and liked what you had to say on many of them. Its cool to be discussing things with you "face-to-face" ,so to say.

 

[Sarkus]

Are you saying that a valid reason for being atheist is as a safety measure to prevent accidentally calling an alien life form God.

No.

If the creator of human life / universe were an alien life form, would that not still make it God. A rose by any other name etc

That's you putting a definition of God into play - not me.

Or, does that just not fit your idea of what god should be - even though you dont believe in god, you obviously have an opinion on what god is.

I have no opinion as to what "god" is. It means nothing to me personally. I will happily discuss with others using their own ideas.

Everyone can define "god" however they want, and as long as it requires me to believe in something that is utterly unprovable then I will not place faith in it.
As soon as your definition of "god" requires no faith - i.e. is proven as fact - then I'll accept it, openly - not as "god" but as what it actually is.

So if an alien race really were our creators - then that is what they are. They are not "god" to me. They would merely be an alien race who happened to be our creators. If you choose to label them "god" then feel free to do so.

 

[Yorda]

being sceptic and open minded seems like a good thing to be.

but some people can't deny the existence of god since they see it as real as this world. and then there are those who think it's absurd to think theres a god, so they have to deny it.

 

[Lori_7]

Also be careful that your search doesn't lead you to treat merely an alien life form as "god".

Hi Sarkus...sorry to butt in, but why did you bring this up? Just curious...

 

[fahrenheit 451]

take a look ay sarkus's post in reply to the same, it is common knowledge.
no the web is not the sole source for information, however most famous name dictionarys and encyclopedias are on the net.
I might be at odds with the dictionary, however you put it forward to express you thoughts, as we all do. ok

 

[Sushupti]

Stoic Agnostic,

He's interacted with me on various levels....different circumstances, different ways. I don't really have it figured out you know? How this whole spiritual realm thing works. But it's a spiritual interaction...telepathic you may call it. I've had it come in the form of ideas, dreams, visions, telepathic conversation (aka prayer). I've had prophecy revealed to me. Sometimes He comes to me through other people who usually are unaware, sometimes via the internet, sometimes through art, like music or poetry, paintings or stories. I've seen Him manipulate my immediate material environment right before my eyes...that was a trip. I've had a spirit inhabit my body and write poetry through me. I've also had other physical manifestations/symptoms of interactions with the spiritual realm. I have to say that recently, I seemed to have hit the spiritual motherload. The whole ride has just been mind blowing....amazing.

None of this implies a god, necessarily, though, does it? Could just as easily be a range of other possible metaphysical entities, couldn't it? It most certainly doesn't [necessarily..] imply the christian god...

 

[Sarkus]

Also be careful that your search doesn't lead you to treat merely an alien life form as "god".

Hi Sarkus...sorry to butt in, but why did you bring this up? Just curious...

The path that Light Travelling was heading down in their reasoning led me to say it, possibly more as a throw-away comment than anything serious.

This then leads me to the possibility that if we have spirit then there may be other spiritual entities in existence.
And this leads me to the possibilty some form of god exists.

To jump from the possibility of the existence of some spiritual entities to the existence of some sort of God suggests, perhaps erroneously on my part, that they think "god" could be found merely where I see an alien species - albeit one that may have created us, that is far more technologically advanced etc.

I hope this answers your question?
If not, feel free to PM me.

 

[phlogistician]

everybody could be classified as agnostic. I just think that if everyone acknowledged that, than fundamentalism could be avoided altogether, and the world could be spared a lot of grief.

Isn't that right! But unfortunately, that isn't how religions work. People like to be in a structure or hierarchy, so with religion, we have vicars and priests etc, who profess in depth knowledge of the subject, and to _know_ truths about the religion. While we have organised religions, we will always have fundamentalism.

People who express personal beliefs are far less likely to organise themselves into a religious army, or decide that another person must be killed for their personal beliefs.

Agnosticism should, in my opinion, at least be the starting point to one's search for answers to the "big" questions, as opposed to blind belief in the religion of one's parents or society, or of some guru promising whatever.

I agree, however, nearly all of us are are inducted into a religion at birth, and many just can't see that their beliefs are due to cultural habit, rather than religious correctness.

I'd far rather have it that we teach children about each world religion without bias, once they are of an age to understand the subjects. Then let them make their own mind up, should they choose to follow one. Of course, it would be confusing for young children, for instance, Christians say Jesus was the messiah, Jews say he wasn't. Kids want a definite answer, so I think these topics would be best left until a child was ten or eleven years old.

Back to definitions for a while, I think that agnostics are atheists. This is the scientist in me, who likes Venn diagrams. You have a set of people who believe, and everybody outside, is an atheist. Now where does agnosticism lie? It's not in the belief set, is it? ;-)




Off topic here: I've followed your posts a lot on these forums, and liked what you had to say on many of them. Its cool to be discussing things with you "face-to-face" ,so to say.[/QUOTE]

 

[Light Travelling]

The path that Light Travelling was heading down in their reasoning led me to say it, possibly more as a throw-away comment than anything serious.
To jump from the possibility of the existence of some spiritual entities to the existence of some sort of God suggests, perhaps erroneously on my part, that they think "god" could be found merely where I see an alien species - albeit one that may have created us, that is far more technologically advanced etc.
.

I know we are off topic but we are here, so can we explore this a little bit further just for fun.

I get from the term 'technologically advanced' that your thought process is still very much in the material. But expand this thought of alien life. What if it were a non coporal, super intelligent being, filling the vastenes of the universe and creating through the power of its will.

So if an alien race really were our creators - then that is what they are. They are not "god" to me. They would merely be an alien race who happened to be our creators. If you choose to label them "god" then feel free to do so .

Here again I think we need to examine what our concept of what God is. If they were a superhuman being that created life / universe, that kind of fits very well with a definition of God. (I wont try to define the word God from any source here, but it might be an idea to do that). And of course God could be Gods - In both the bible and Koran God refers to himself as 'us', and we obviously have Hinduism.

And even atheists need a concept of what God is, to know what they don't believe in. No offence, but you cant not believe in an undefined thing. In order to form an opinion on any subject we must first define it in our minds.

 

[water]

And even atheists need a concept of what God is, to know what they don't believe in. No offence, but you cant not believe in an undefined thing. In order to form an opinion on any subject we must first define it in our minds.

Exactly.

 

[Sarkus]

Okay - when I hear the term "god" it is always associated with an unprovable "thing" (spiritual, ethereal, material, whatever) that relies on faith for belief. It is always used to define a currently (or eternally) unknown.

I do not place "faith" in an unknown - hence I do not believe in "god" - either in material terms or in spiritual or ethereal or any other.

As soon as the unknown that you have defined as your God becomes known then you can still call it God - but I will call it by what it is now known to be. And there won't be a need for faith.


And whether the "alien race" or "god" is technologically advanced or is more/differently evolved such that it exists with out form - or whatever - until it is shown to us it relies on faith to believe in it. I choose not to believe in it. I consider that its existence is a possibility, as is an infinite number of other things. But I won't "believe" that it is true.
As soon as it is shown to us, and shown to exist within this universe, then I will not need to "believe" - for it will be known. We may not understand it, at first or indeed ever, but it will not be "god". It will merely be an advanced life-form.

But I say again, if you define "god" as the creator of our race, and this alien race turns out to be our creator, then feel free to refer to them as "god". It is, after all, just a label.

(Forgive me if I now go on a ramble, but I'm sort of thinking out loud....)
Speaking from my own point of view, as I can not speak for all atheists, it's not that I don't believe in the word "god": you could after all define "god" however you want.
I do not "believe" in any concept that requires faith - i.e. in an unproven or unprovable concept, especially those that are given to us through theology (scripture etc).
All definitions of god that I have come across require some element of "faith". If not then you are putting the label of "god" onto a purely material thing - and the questions then are (a) why not call it by what it really is? and (b) why worship this material thing?

 

[Light Travelling]

thankyou for your reply, I would answer as follows;

And whether the "alien race" or "god" is technologically advanced or is more/differently evolved such that it exists with out form - or whatever - until it is shown to us it relies on faith to believe in it. I choose not to believe in it. I consider that its existence is a possibility, as is an infinite number of other things. But I won't "believe" that it is true.
As soon as it is shown to us, and shown to exist within this universe, then I will not need to "believe" - for it will be known. We may not understand it, at first or indeed ever, but it will not be "god". It will merely be an advanced life-form.

This does sound a bit like you are waiting for some form of God / higher conscienceness to show itself. You probably feel you aren't but its just an observation.

All definitions of god that I have come across require some element of "faith". If not then you are putting the label of "god" onto a purely material thing - and the questions then are (a) why not call it by what it really is? and (b) why worship this material thing?

This seems to be an example of how people mis-define the word god. There is an assumption that God is there purely for worship (this is because of organised religion).
But the word god has no implication of worship. You (and others) give this word this connotation, which it does not inherently have. Although it is of course true that people worship gods. I believe the word idol does have connotations of worship however.

To be classed as a god purely by definition of the word a thing needs only 1. power of creation and 2. powers exceeding those of the human.

So like you say at the end of the day its about labels. To say I believe in God really means I believe that something exists in some form or other somewhere in the unviverse with the power of creation and powers exceeding ours.
You can even argue that we have the power of creation, so maybe we are gods (or gods children). After all many religious teachings tell us that God is whithin us and can only be found by looking within.

Again I'm just thinking out loud here.

 

[Sarkus]

This does sound a bit like you are waiting for some form of God / higher conscienceness to show itself. You probably feel you aren't but its just an observation.

No - I was using this merely as an example, based on my understanding of the reasoning you were using. It is in no way indicative of my own stance.
Don't get me wrong - I would dearly love an alien race to show itself - but purely from my scientific curiosity etc.

This seems to be an example of how people mis-define the word god. There is an assumption that God is there purely for worship (this is because of organised religion).
But the word god has no implication of worship. You (and others) give this word this connotation, which it does not inherently have. Although it is of course true that people worship gods. I believe the word idol does have connotations of worship however.

To be classed as a god purely by definition of the word a thing needs only 1. power of creation and 2. powers exceeding those of the human.

So like you say at the end of the day its about labels. To say I believe in God really means I believe that something exists in some form or other somewhere in the unviverse with the power of creation and powers exceeding ours.
You can even argue that we have the power of creation, so maybe we are gods (or gods children). After all many religious teachings tell us that God is whithin us and can only be found by looking within.

Again I'm just thinking out loud here.

Thanks for an understanding of your idea of "god".
When you say "creation" I presume you referring actual creation from nothing rather than mere matter-manipulation?
If so then we certainly do not have the power of creation.

Unfortunately, everyone's definition of what constitutes a "god" or even their "God" is most likely different - and as we agree, it becomes a mere label.
But when you refer to "god" you have faith. Whether you worship or not you say your "god" exists - when you say "I believe in god" - whatever that god is - you display faith.
This is the commonality of belief in all "gods" - it is not the "god" but the believing.

 

[lezardo]

Originally Posted by phlogistician
Back to definitions for a while, I think that agnostics are atheists. This is the scientist in me, who likes Venn diagrams. You have a set of people who believe, and everybody outside, is an atheist. Now where does agnosticism lie? It's not in the belief set, is it? ;-)

In my version, the antitheists make up a separate set, since they also have a belief, namely the non-existance of God. That leaves the agnostics outside, same as your example. But then again this is all depends on how one defines atheists and agnostics.

I don't really find myself disagreeing with anything you've said after your first post. The only problem I have is with the claim that agnostics "don't know their own mind". I believe the pure scientist would look at the evidence for and against the existance of a higher power, and realize that he has no means to prove it either way. Then his honest answer to the question of whether or not such a being exists, would have to be that he doesn't know. To quote Confucius here: "Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance." Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Buddha often credited with telling someone who asked him about the existance of God that the question wasn't of relevance? So even some religions assume an agnostic viewpoint of sorts.

Of course, people are emotional creatures with the need to believe in something, so hoping that everybody will assume an agnostic worldview is a naive wish. Even so, agnosticism remains, as I see it, the only logical conclusion. Of course, one must differentiate between people who say "I don't know" because they haven't thought about the question, and those that say it because careful thought has led them to the conclusion. In the latter case, I think it can be said that these people do know their own mind.

 

[Cris]

Light Travelling, Water,

And even atheists need a concept of what God is, to know what they don't believe in. No offence, but you cant not believe in an undefined thing.

To help clarify since I think you are confusing the proposition and the concept.

Atheists have little trouble understanding the concept of gods but it is the theist proposition that such things are real that the atheist finds unacceptable and unsupported, hence no reason to believe the proposition.