Can Agnostics Praise the Supreme God of Monotheism When They Want?

[Pious]

Hi all,

In monotheism (eg. Islam, Judaism and ancient Zoroastrianism), God is: inherently One, Eternal, Absolute; and there is none like unto Him; and God is worthy of praise.

But according to agnostics, it is possible that the supreme God of monotheism may exist!!! So since agnostics DON'T totally reject, can they praise the supreme God too, when they want to?

Pious

 

[Yazata]

In monotheism (eg. Islam, Judaism and ancient Zoroastrianism), God is: inherently One, Eternal, Absolute; and there is none like unto Him; and God is worthy of praise.

But according to agnostics, it is possible that the supreme God of monotheism may exist!!!

Agnosticism isn't an uncommitted 'maybe' position about the existence of some religion's god.

It's the individual agnostic's recogition that he or she personally, and probably the rest of the finite inhabitants of this universe as well, don't currently have (and most likely can't ever have) knowledge of matters that supposedly transcend this universe. Some agnostics might not even be convinced that the phrase 'transcendental knowledge' makes sense.

So agnosticism is more of an epistemological position than an ontological one.

So since agnostics DON'T totally reject, can they praise the supreme God too, when they want to?

The question to ask is - would an agnostic want to?

'Praise' seems to refer to expression of a very positive religiously-motivated emotional state in the worshipper. If agnostics don't feel that they have knowledge whether or not transcendental beings even exist, let alone what their attributes may or may not be, then it's unlikely that an agnostic will feel any motivation to enter into a worshipful emotional state.

But having said that, we need to recognize that it isn't universally true and that the answer to your question can sometimes be 'yes'.

There's a long tradition of what's often called 'negative' or 'apophatic' theology, well-established in Christianity and with analogues in many of the world's religions. This idea refers to the belief, which dates back to antiquity, that God is so exalted and so transcendent that all of mankind's descriptive predicates either don't apply to God or only apply loosely and analogously.

So God, approached this way, overflows and transcends human language and concepts. This kind of religiously-inspired agnosticism is typically associated with a very strong and sometimes overwhelming individual non-verbal subjective feeling of what is interpreted as and believed to be God's presence.

We often find these kind of negative theologies associated with religious mysticism and with contemplative practices like yogic meditation in Hinduism or hesychasm in eastern Orthodox Christianity.

For those interested, here's a link to the Google results for "negative theology".

 

[Sarkus]

In answer to the OP - yes, they can.

As Yazata has indicated, belief is an ontological position and agnosticism an epistemological one, so they are not incompatible in and of themselves.

However, the reasoning that usually results in agnosticism more often than not leads the one step further to atheism rather than theism... i.e. if there is no knowledge of a God (epistemological position), why believe (ontological position)... after all, they don't believe in any number of other things for which there is no knowledge.

That said, it was Pascal who came up with a rationale for the agnostic theist. Paraphrased: God is unknowable, but if you believe in Him then you have everything to win and nothing to lose, and since the reward is so large it is foolish not to take the gamble.
This is Pascal's Wager

I know of a few people who are Agnostic (not that they would admit it directly, mostly as they are not clued up to the terminology) but who are also theists, not quite in the "negative theology" way that Yazata mentions, but I guess similar.
These people freely admit that they think God is not something that we can know, but feel that belief is somehow fundamental... not in a specific God (as they also admit that this is more determined by your upbringing) but just to have belief in something larger.

 

[Janus58]

Of course, when agnostics do pray, they open with: "To whom it may concern..."

 

[Pious]

Thanks for the answers!

That said, it was Pascal who came up with a rationale for the agnostic theist. Paraphrased: God is unknowable, but if you believe in Him then you have everything to win and nothing to lose, and since the reward is so large it is foolish not to take the gamble.
This is Pascal's Wager

I know of a few people who are Agnostic (not that they would admit it directly, mostly as they are not clued up to the terminology) but who are also theists, not quite in the "negative theology" way that Yazata mentions, but I guess similar.

So agnosticism seems to PERMIT even praising and praying to the supreme God, whose attributes are claimed to be explained in monotheistic (Islamic, Jewish, etc) religious texts.

Pious

 

[Rav]

So agnosticism seems to PERMIT even praising and praying to the supreme God, whose attributes are claimed to be explained in monotheistic (Islamic, Jewish, etc) religious texts.

Pious

The moment that you find yourself praying to a specific god in the genuinely faithful and reverent manner that would be necessary for it to actually count as a real prayer, I really don't think that you're agnostic anymore.

Of course, when agnostics do pray, they open with: "To whom it may concern..."

I like it

 

[Yazata]

So agnosticism seems to PERMIT even praising and praying to the supreme God, whose attributes are claimed to be explained in monotheistic (Islamic, Jewish, etc) religious texts.

Regarding the word "permit": Well, agnosticism doesn't have any authoritative organization or canons of orthodoxy, so individual agnostics can do pretty much whatever makes sense to them. Their being agnostics in the first place does kind of imply that they weight knowledge highly in religious matters and believe that they personally (and very likely everyone else as well) don't possess it.

Most agnostics, especially today, don't believe that they have enough information to refer to or identify what you call "the supreme God", let alone to say anything informative about its qualities and characteristics should such a thing exist. So most agnostics are very close to being atheists in practice, since they don't actively believe in any monotheistic or polytheistic gods, nor do they think that any of the world's religions reveal such things.

But religiously-inspired agnostics do exist today and have existed for thousands of years. We see them in ancient Greece, India and China, speaking in the Upanishads and in the 'Book of Tao', which begins:

The Tao that can be told of
Is not the True Tao
The names that can be given
Are not the True Names

The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth

We find Christianity's pseudo-Dionysius and many of the medieval mystics such as the author of 'The Cloud of Unknowing' saying similar things. Some of Islam's Sufi mystics have taken this path. It's a very common tendency in the world's contemplative and mystical traditions.

The difference between the atheistic agnostics and the religiously-inspired agnostics is that the latter typically believe that while their God transcends human language and concepts, that they can still have non-verbal and non-cognitive religious experiences of contact with that God. Those experiences are typically the primary focus of their religious practice.

As far as textual revelations such as the Bible or the Quran go, most of these religious mystics do accept and value these texts, but they are very apt to interpret them allegorically and symbolically as opposed to literally. They don't reject their religious tradition, instead they typically see themselves as being at its heart and core.

 

[Randwolf]

Most agnostics, especially today, don't believe that they have enough information to refer to or identify what you call "the supreme God", let alone to say anything informative about its qualities and characteristics should such a thing exist. So most agnostics are very close to being atheists in practice, since they don't actively believe in any monotheistic or polytheistic gods, nor do they think that any of the world's religions reveal such things.

It looks like you are headed towards a concept known as "Ignosticism". I learned of this particular "branch" of agnosticism right here on SF soon after I first joined - you know, when people actually start to notice you and begin to quiz you on your religious, political and sexual beliefs and orientations. Then they proceed to tell you that you are miserably mistaken, of course.


Anyway, here is a couple of Wiki excerpts on the subject.


This appears to paraphrase Yazata's thoughts (or vice versa):

In a chapter of his 1936 book Language, Truth, and Logic, A. J. Ayer argued that one could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical.[4] Ayer wrote that this ruled out atheism and agnosticism as well as theism because all three positions assume that the sentence "God exists" is meaningful.[5] Given the meaninglessness of theistic claims, Ayer opined that there was "no logical ground for antagonism between religion and natural science",[6] as theism alone does not entail any propositions which the scientific method can falsify.

Sound familiar?


Wiki's opening on the subject:

Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts. The word "ignosticism" was coined by Sherwin Wine, a rabbi and a founding figure in Humanistic Judaism.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

1. The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.

This seems to define my personal position on the matter, after all, if God is omniscient, infinite and omnipotent, how can we possibly even conceive of such a being / construct? This does not prevent me from partaking of Pascal's wager though, I figure I need all the help I can get. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "There are no atheists in a foxhole."?

Seriously, it does seem likely that something "more" is out there - but that's where I get stuck. This does not, however, keep me from uttering phrases like "Please, God, don't let that policeman have seen me run that red light." or praying for a loved one's recovery after an operation or illness. And then saying "Thank God" when things turn out alright.

Whether this amounts to "sincere" prayer or praise may be another kettle of fish, but it seems real at the time. So, no, I do not believe being "Ignostic", at least, precludes appeal to or appreciation for "to whom it may concern". I believe many "Agnostics" (and the various subsets thereof) mostly object to the personal, anthropomorphic "God" as described in the Bible, Q'uran and other holy books.

After all, what rational person would insist that nothing can possibly exist beyond what we can currently conceive of? Seems a bit too much hubris for me. On the other hand, don't try to drag me to church on the Sabbath, either.

 

[Adstar]

Hi all,

In monotheism (eg. Islam, Judaism and ancient Zoroastrianism), God is: inherently One, Eternal, Absolute; and there is none like unto Him; and God is worthy of praise.

But according to agnostics, it is possible that the supreme God of monotheism may exist!!! So since agnostics DON'T totally reject, can they praise the supreme God too, when they want to?

Pious

Interesting.


Well i would not object of i saw a agnostic praising The God of Abraham.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[spidergoat]

Hi all,

In monotheism (eg. Islam, Judaism and ancient Zoroastrianism), God is: inherently One, Eternal, Absolute; and there is none like unto Him; and God is worthy of praise.

But according to agnostics, it is possible that the supreme God of monotheism may exist!!! So since agnostics DON'T totally reject, can they praise the supreme God too, when they want to?

Pious

No, unfortunately they cannot. It's all or nothing.

 

[Lori_7]

No, unfortunately they cannot. It's all or nothing.

i agree. how can you praise something if you don't even know it exists? ... doesn't make sense.

 

[Adstar]

I have often advised Agnostics to pray to God. If someone genuinely thinks that God could exists i cannot see anything wrong with them trying talking with Him.

I guess praise is just another step. They can try praising Him for the opportunity at life, Or praise Him for the beauty of the world around them.

But yeah praise and prayer have their best value when one actually believes God is.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Sarkus]

No, unfortunately they cannot. It's all or nothing.

Why? The two issues (agnosticism and theism) are not mutually exclusive. One is an epistemological issue, the other ontological. And what people are willing to believe, in the absence of knowledge, is up to them, surely?
You and I may not be able to reconcile the positions, but if others can - rationally or not - that is for them to decide.

i agree. how can you praise something if you don't even know it exists? ... doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense to me, either, but it's called belief, is it not? If you knew it existed then where would the belief be.
Simply put, there ARE agnostic theists... people who have no direct knowledge of God (and possibly consider God unknowable) but trust in the authority of such things as the Bible and in those that have raised them and taught them.

 

[Lori_7]

It doesn't make sense to me, either, but it's called belief, is it not? If you knew it existed then where would the belief be.
Simply put, there ARE agnostic theists... people who have no direct knowledge of God (and possibly consider God unknowable) but trust in the authority of such things as the Bible and in those that have raised them and taught them.

i believe that lots of people and things exist because i know them (experience them).

praising something certainly implies a belief in it's existence. people can, and do, praise the bible, and those who raise and teach them. in order to praise god though, you would have to believe that your experience is attributable to god on some level, and for some good and tangible reason. that's knowledge.

 

[spidergoat]

Why? The two issues (agnosticism and theism) are not mutually exclusive. One is an epistemological issue, the other ontological. And what people are willing to believe, in the absence of knowledge, is up to them, surely?
You and I may not be able to reconcile the positions, but if others can - rationally or not - that is for them to decide.

I was just kidding.

 

[Sarkus]

i believe that lots of people and things exist because i know them (experience them).

And lots of people believe things exist merely because they are told that the things exist, and perhaps because they get comfort from that, while still acknowledging that they do not have (and possibly can not have) knowledge of the thing. They work purely on testimony and appeals to authority.

 

[Yazata]

There seem to be several possible versions of agnosticism floating around here:

1. Belief that one has knowledge about what the word 'God' means (as described in scripture, omniscient, omnipotent, personal etc.) but agnosticism (lack of knowledge) about whether or not this traditional God exists in reality.

Pascal's Wager seems to presuppose this rather old-style culture-specific form of agnosticism and argues that agnostic religious devotion is fully rational, on the theory that if this God exists, then praise might win the agnostic eternal salvation, while if God doesn't exist, nothing important is lost by praising an illusion.

2. Agnosticism (lack of knowldge) of what God is and what "his" qualities are, based on the inability of our human words and concepts to apply to "his" utter transcendent glory. But no doubts that God exists because of mystical experience that supposedly results in non-cognitive contact with the divine.

This is the direction taken by religious mystics all around the world. Hindu yogis, Christian contemplatives and Muslim Sufis all tell similar stories. Many of them devote their whole life to praise.

3. Agnosticism (lack of knowledge) of both the proper descriptive meaning of the word 'God' and of whether or not anything real corresponds to the word. This version seems to result in the modern form of agnosticism that tends toward a weak atheism.

I don't see how "praise" enters into the picture with this form of agnosticism, since there wouldn't seem to be any motivation to praise a question-mark.

While I have real sympathy for the second group, I think that I personally fit best among the third sort of agnostics. I feel no impulse to "praise God".

 

[Pious]

I believe many "Agnostics" (and the various subsets thereof) mostly object to the personal, anthropomorphic "God" as described in the Bible, Q'uran and other holy books.

No, I don't think religious texts describe God as "anthropomorphic". See, for example, these verses:

The Quran, 6:103
"No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things."

The Bible, Exodus 20:3-5
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."

These texts claim God is beyond our understanding.

There's a long tradition of what's often called 'negative' or 'apophatic' theology, well-established in Christianity and with analogues in many of the world's religions. This idea refers to the belief, which dates back to antiquity, that God is so exalted and so transcendent that all of mankind's descriptive predicates either don't apply to God or only apply loosely and analogously.

Ok, mankind's description don't apply to God. But when religious people claim their texts are God's Word, then "negative theology" can't be used. In this case, it is God's own description about himself.

So Pascal's Wager seems attractive for agnostics, and there is every reason for them to pray...

 

[Yazata]

No, I don't think religious texts describe God as "anthropomorphic". See, for example, these verses:

The Quran, 6:103

No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things.

'Him"? "Grasp"? "Acquainted"?

The Bible, Exodus 20:3-5

Thou shalt have no other gods before me...

for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God.

"Me"? "Jealous"?

My point is that to conceive of 'God' as a person is anthropomorphism. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have a fundamentally anthropomorphic conception of their deity.

Ok, mankind's description don't apply to God. But when religious people claim their texts are God's Word, then "negative theology" can't be used. In this case, it is God's own description about himself.

That's what many conventional believers in these religious traditions would likely say. But it's also something that most agnostics would be extremely skeptical about.

Those that don't know whether or not God exists wouldn't be likely to believe that a particular scripture is a self-revelation from God.

And those that don't know what descriptive meaning the word 'God' should have pretty clearly aren't accepting that scripture has already provided them with that information.

This does illustrate why the religious mystics have often been thought of as borderline-heretical by the more fundamentalist textual-literalist currents in their respective traditions. The mystics often downplay the literal meaning of their scriptures and interpret their Torahs, Bibles and Qurans in symbolic and allegorical ways.

So Pascal's Wager seems attractive for agnostics, and there is every reason for them to pray...

No, I think that Pascal's wager has almost zero attraction for contemporary agnostics.

Pascal was raised in a cultural environment in which Christianity was simply assumed. Today we live in a globalized world that resembles a religious supermarket. Right here on the internet, we have access to every religion on Earth (and on 16 alien planets). Instead of just absorbing our religion from our environment as past generations did, we are turning into religious consumers. We pick and choose the beliefs that most appeal to us.

The problem that presents for the 'wager' is that the 'wager' assumes that there's only one legitimate religious tradition (Christianity in Pascal's thinking) and that man's only choice is to take it or leave it. But today religion's no longer a Christianity-or-nothing matter. There are countless religious options out there. Even if by chance one of them offers a true path to eternal salvation (something that most agnostics are probably strongly inclined to doubt), the chances of choosing it at random is small indeed.

And that's assuming that one could win entry into heaven by going through the religious motions in a calculated self-interested manner without any underlying belief and faith, which is doubtful in just about any religious tradition as well. (That's a problem that Pascal never seems to have recognized.)

Pascal was an interesting guy. He was a big-time mathematician and physicist who seems to have suffered some kind of psychological breakdown in midlife. He emerged from this crisis with a powerful religious passion. But he was also an intellectual of his time, fully exposed to all of the skeptical and deist currents, and he realized that he wasn't able to fully justify his newly important religious piety to his friends', or even his own, satisfaction.

So that's the context of his 'wager'. It's not so much that he was producing a novel game-theoretical argument intended to win non-believers to Christ. The 'wager' is actually a bit of rationalization on his part, intended to justify to himself and his circle of friends why his new-found religiosity, which had entirely different psychological origins, wasn't entirely irrational.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Interesting.

Well i would not object of i saw a agnostic praising The God of Abraham.

*************
M*W: Well, of course you wouldn't, but which god of Abraham would you consider to be the right one? Abraham was a polytheist and an idol maker like his father.