Agnostic - The wisest option for man?

[Cris]

re: Agnosticism

There are only two positions, either one believes a god exists or one does not believe. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods as is widely defined by atheist literature and relevant knowledgable organizations. Agnostics lack a belief in gods and are therefore also atheists.

Historically atheism was erroneously assumed to be a belief system that gods do not exist. An idea propagated and overtly emphasized by religionists, for of course their own biased purposes. Many older dictionaries also depict this incorrect position. Newer dictionaries are slowly correcting their entries.

Agnosticism grew out of a desire to take the more reasoned skeptical road of – I don’t know. That is also the dominant atheist position. However, the idea that atheism is a belief that gods do not exist remains a quite widespread misunderstanding by the many that have not looked more closely at these philosophies. In this respect the use of the term agnostic is largely seen as neutral, and more comfortable with many who see the title of atheism to be more militant in nature.

 

[phlogistician]

re: Agnosticism

There are only two positions, either one believes a god exists or one does not believe. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods ....

Exactly. This is where the term 'atheist' gets twisted. It is not about a belief in a negative. It's about not believing. So as you say, there are two positions. Not a third, as agnosticism implies. Agnostics don't believe, they don't have _faith_, so are atheists.

To re-iterate, we are all atheists. Because nobody believes in all of the gods. Many deists excuse themselves of this, because they say that pantheistic religions worships facets of one god. This is not the case, they are separate entitities, and unless you belive in all of them, are an atheist too.

 

[Sarkus]

I know it's mere semantics, but I would actually say that if you believe in a god, no matter which one, you are not atheist.
Atheism is the absence of the belief in god.
As soon as there is not that absence, i.e. as soon as you believe in one, many or all gods, you are not atheist.

 

[Light Travelling]

Yes, surely atheism is a lack of belief in the concept of god, rather than in specifc gods.

 

[phlogistician]

I know it's mere semantics, but I would actually say that if you believe in a god, no matter which one, you are not atheist.

I disagree, for one very important reason. People who believe in one god refuse to accept that there are solid reasons for not believing in that one god. BUT they have the exact same reservations about other deities. They probably think believing in Zeus is absurd, as absurd as some atheists find the need for a single god. So, for credibility, they say pantheistic religions are misguided (which is arrogance) and pantheists worhship facets of their one god. This is a clear case of double think, and not to be tolerated.

As far as I am concerned, 'God' is one amongst many gods, and I do not believe in any of them. Deists have to recognise their true positoin on these other deities, and I will not excuse them from having atheistic tendancies towards them. But they will shy away from deconstructing other gods, knowing the same arguments apply to theirs. They are on the hook, so let's not let them off.

 

[wesmorris]

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

Wha?

Similar to those theists who fear and revere their god, and hate those who do not?

Originally Posted by Light Travelling
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.

Uhm... does a dog believe in god? What about a baby?

By definition, a baby or a dog would fit "weak athiest", for they lack belief in a god or gods.... No?

 

[wesmorris]

Oh, and it should be noted that agnosticism does not specifically regard issues of theism. Agnosticism is about epistemology... the nature of knowing and such.

 

[Light Travelling]

I disagree, for one very important reason. People who believe in one god refuse to accept that there are solid reasons for not believing in that one god. BUT they have the exact same reservations about other deities. They probably think believing in Zeus is absurd, as absurd as some atheists find the need for a single god. So, for credibility, they say pantheistic religions are misguided (which is arrogance) and pantheists worhship facets of their one god. This is a clear case of double think, and not to be tolerated.

As far as I am concerned, 'God' is one amongst many gods, and I do not believe in any of them. Deists have to recognise their true positoin on these other deities, and I will not excuse them from having atheistic tendancies towards them. But they will shy away from deconstructing other gods, knowing the same arguments apply to theirs. They are on the hook, so let's not let them off.

Not so, I believe in the Gods of all religions. There are many names and many perceptions depending on time, cultures and teacher.

The god of the Jews is the same God of the christians and Muslims. So I see no conflict there.

Hinduism has many gods but overall the concept of one creator, so I see no conflict.

Buddha remained silent on question of creator, but talks of a stream of life conscienceness that the enlightened may merge into. I see no conflict there.

Taoism - tao equals universal life energy (sound like stream of life conscienceness), so I see no conflict there.

Sikhism seeks to reconcile Islam with Hiduism.

The pantheism exists in all in the forms of religion - lesser gods / angels / Jinn / spitirual beings, buddhas (there is more than one).

Some place more personality on god, some less, some refuse to comment. Differnt cultures have found different ways to express somthing that is in all of us.
But I believe that whatever name and label you put on it. God is in all of us and we are in God. ALL IS ONE. The search for God is an inner journey and that is what all the great world teachers and religious founders have taught. Although all religions have erred to differing degrees and distorted these truths in their outer form.

If you look for differences you can find them, But if you want to look for underlying truths and oneness you can find that too.

 

[Light Travelling]

Uhm... does a dog believe in god? What about a baby?

By definition, a baby or a dog would fit "weak athiest", for they lack belief in a god or gods.... No?

Yea - you are only backing up what I said.
" In order to form an opinion on any subject we must first define it in our minds"

A dog or baby have not defined a concept of god so they can neither believe or deny its existence.

 

[wesmorris]

Grr. That's incorrect.

A dog and a baby both "lack belief".

(note that atheism is the natural state of being)

My yard is atheist.

Thus your attempted point "even atheists need a concept of what God" is simply wrong.

 

[Nasor]

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.

That’s not “reasoning,” that’s just you refusing to consider possibilities because you find them unpleasant. Can you provide rational explanations for why you hold all those beliefs? Note that "I just don't like the idea" is not an explanation.

 

[Nasor]

Insisting in agnosticism is like not putting your messy room in order. Because you can't decide where to put what, so you just leave everything as it is.

In a messy room, you can't do anything, and similarly, agnosticism only gets you a step further to a meaningless old age, not to finding answers.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should have beliefs simply for the sake of having them? One of the classic characteristics of a “wise” person is that they’re willing to admit when they don’t know something with certainty, rather than simply picking a possibility because they can’t stand to not have all the answers.

 

[phlogistician]

ALL IS ONE.

See, you're doing it! Trampling on other people's faith to suit your own dogma. Other people's gods are distinct entities, not ONE mushy vague god like spiritual confusion.

You don't seem to believe what other people do, that makes you an atheist from their point of view, can you not simply accept this?

 

[Light Travelling]

Grr. That's incorrect.

A dog and a baby both "lack belief".

(note that atheism is the natural state of being)

My yard is atheist.

Thus your attempted point "even atheists need a concept of what God" is simply wrong.

OK I accept that we are born atheist, and I accept that some athiests never deny the existence of God.

But as we grow we either form a concept of god (or a concept is given to us). We then either form a belief that either on the balance of probability a god exists or on the balance of probability a god does not exist.

Very few people have a completely neutral stance, which is what I gather from your posts true atheism is.

And please accept this, I have seen many posts on this site which go something like - I am an atheist and god does not exist. But now I see that there is actually no connection between the two. One may say I am an atheist and one may say god does not exist, but they should never be linked as there is actually no correlation.

 

[Light Travelling]

One of the classic characteristics of a “wise” person is that they’re willing to admit when they don’t know something with certainty, rather than simply picking a possibility because they can’t stand to not have all the answers.

Yes but there is a difference between knowledge and belief.

And a wise man will NEVER claim to know anything for absolute certainty, even if it has been apparently proved.

A wise man will have a current store of knowledge, wich will remian valid until new information comes to light and a set of beliefs which will allow him to explore the truth of matters further.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should have beliefs simply for the sake of having them? .

If we dont have beliefs we dont advance - we simply accept the current store of knowledge and seek to go no further.

If science had not believed there were smaller paricles than the atom we would never have found the quark.

If columbus hadn't believed he would have found land to the west we would never have found america.

People act on beliefs not knowledge this is the proces of discovery.

And lets look at knowledge - through time science continually prooves itself wrong as new information comes to light. So what do we really know ?

Do you call knowledge all that is proven? and if so proven by whom. Does it have to be proven by yourself, or can someone else proove it and tell you. If they do tell you , do you BELIEVE them.
You cant proove everything for yourself, noone can, so you have to believe things, and before embarking on any scientific research we have to have a belief of what we might find.

To believe is to be human.

 

[Sarkus]

We then either form a belief that either on the balance of probability a god exists or on the balance of probability a god does not exist.

Only if you don't understand probability.
Simply put - there are an infinite possible scenarios outside our Universe.
Each god is just one and there are an infinite number of alternatives to god as well.
The probability that any one of those exists is thus, logically, and obeying the rules of probability - 1/infinite - which any mathematician will tell you is ZERO.
Likewise, the absence of everything outside our Universe also has a ZERO probability, under the same logic.

The only belief that has any probability greater than zero is:
"There is something outside our Universe - but such that we can never know or have any concept of whatsoever."
This, unsurprisingly, has a 100% probability.

Okay, with me so far...?

So, for all those people that believe in a god outside our Universe (i.e. the Creator of our Universe) you either believe in a specific possibility (zero chance) or you merely believe there is an inconceivable thing outside our universe - and assign nothing to it - no purpose, no meaning, no concept, no nothing!

So, in essence - why worship it?
Why call it god?
It is nothing you can ever conceptualise or do anything with.
It (whatever IT is), like our Universe, just is - anything else falls into the ZERO PROBABILITY category.


Okay - belief in a tangible god solely WITHIN our own Universe is either purely abstract (e.g. an intangible concept designed to keep people in line), or explainable as something else and thus just a label for what we don't yet know within our Universe.
As soon as your "god" can disappear outside the confines of our Universe you have to assess it as just another possibility with ZERO PROBABILITY (under the assessment above).


I have no idea where agnostics fit into this.

 

[Light Travelling]

Only if you don't understand probability.
Simply put - there are an infinite possible scenarios outside our Universe.
Each god is just one and there are an infinite number of alternatives to god as well.
The probability that any one of those exists is thus, logically, and obeying the rules of probability - 1/infinite - which any mathematician will tell you is ZERO.
Likewise, the absence of everything outside our Universe also has a ZERO probability, under the same logic.

The only belief that has any probability greater than zero is:
"There is something outside our Universe - but such that we can never know or have any concept of whatsoever."
This, unsurprisingly, has a 100% probability.

Okay, with me so far...?

So, for all those people that believe in a god outside our Universe (i.e. the Creator of our Universe) you either believe in a specific possibility (zero chance) or you merely believe there is an inconceivable thing outside our universe - and assign nothing to it - no purpose, no meaning, no concept, no nothing!

So, in essence - why worship it?
Why call it god?
It is nothing you can ever conceptualise or do anything with.
It (whatever IT is), like our Universe, just is - anything else falls into the ZERO PROBABILITY category.


Okay - belief in a tangible god solely WITHIN our own Universe is either purely abstract (e.g. an intangible concept designed to keep people in line), or explainable as something else and thus just a label for what we don't yet know within our Universe.
As soon as your "god" can disappear outside the confines of our Universe you have to assess it as just another possibility with ZERO PROBABILITY (under the assessment above).


I have no idea where agnostics fit into this.

Ok the use of the phrase balance of probability was ill advised. But you take this out of context of the entire post.

You fail to answer that we all believe things, we do not prove everything for ourselves (see above) and before proof and knowledge, must come belief.

And this is the fault in the atheist argument and why this is such a sore subject, if you allow belief in one thing however small you have to allow other beliefs to exist. Then the whole non-belief without proof philosophy falls down.

Also - a point I made earlier. A thing does not have to be worshipped to be god. I say god may be found inside , I do not say worship ourselves I simply say seek God.

When the god within meets the God without all becomes one and this is enlightenment.

 

[Light Travelling]

See, you're doing it! Trampling on other people's faith to suit your own dogma. Other people's gods are distinct entities, not ONE mushy vague god like spiritual confusion.?

No I do not trample peoples beliefs, because the teachings do not belong to them, they were given freely to the world. I often disagree on interpretation of these teachings. But that is not the fault of the teachings. People have percieved the gods as seperate but they are not. Religious understanding advances just as scientific understanding does!

Do not diregard all just because people percieve and interpret differently.

You don't seem to believe what other people do, that makes you an atheist from their point of view, can you not simply accept this?

If other people want to percieve me or define me as an atheist that is not my problem, but I do not define myself as such.

And do not get me wrong. I have no problem with atheism, in fact I believe it to be a valid path. The philosophers path, that of plato etc. The problem I have with the atheist is when they attack others right to believe. I have the same problem with religionists who attack others rights to different religion or no religion at all.

 

[Sarkus]

You fail to answer that we all believe things, we do not proove everything for ourselves (see above) and before proof and knowledge, must come belief.

I don't "believe" things. I generally accept things on the balance of probability based on directly observed experience. I place no "blind faith" in anything at all. Religion and "god" is the only thing that requires it.

And this is the fault in the atheist argument and why this is such a sore subject, if you allow belief in one thing however small you have to allow other beliefs to exist. Then the whole non-acceptance without proof philosophy falls down.

If that was true - if the atheist placed a belief in something else that requires blind faith. But nothing I know of does (speaking from a personal viewpoint - I can of course not speak for everyone).

Also - a point I made earlier. A thing does not have to be worshipped to be god. I say god may be found inside , I do not say worship ourselves I simply say seek God.

Then we reach the matter of god merely being a label for something else (as I think we both agree).
But most likely your concept of god is equally as intangible and belief in it as equally requiring of blind faith as a worshipped god.

Or are you of the mindset that the journey that is more important than the goal?

When the god within meets the God without all becomes one and this is enlightenment.

Maybe enlightenment is coming to the understanding that god doesn't exist and that we are the same people without him/her/it/whatever?

But I stress, I do not (as far as I am aware) believe anything with the blind faith that religion requires. That is why your notion that "the non-acceptance without proof philosophy falls down" is erroneous in its conclusion. It is a strawman fallacy in that you have knocked down an assumption (that I believe in other things the way others believe in god) that was never there.

However, I may very well be wrong in that - I admit - and if so it is NOT the belief in god that will get corrected but this apparent blind-faith that I have put in something else.
But do not confuse the believing that requires "blind-faith" with "believing" that is merely a subconcious weighing up of probability.

 

[Light Travelling]

If that was true - if the atheist placed a belief in something else that requires blind faith. But nothing I know of does (speaking from a personal viewpoint - I can of course not speak for everyone)..

You have made a leap here from the belief I was talking about above to this 'blind faith'. We all have to believe sometimes before knowledge comes.
(Some religionists do have blind faith. I am not saying I hold with this view.)

I choose to accept all while waiting for knowledge - others choose to deny all while waiting for knowledge, I think that is the main difference. This leaves my mind in the 'open' position rather than the 'closed' position. Or so I believe.

Or are you of the mindset that the journey that is more important than the goal?.

The journey is certainly important, i think as important (otherwise why have it at all), but not more important.