Consistent or Delimited Agnosticism

C

ConsequentAtheist

Registered Senior Member
For those of you who claim to be Agnostics, how do you determine the scope of your agnosticism? In other words, are you equally agnostic with respect to all things the you don't and/or can't know, or only with respect to some subset of that class?
 
Can there be degrees of agnosticism? Either you believe God exists, or you don't, or you're not sure. If you're not sure, you're either an agnostic or perhaps a weak atheist. If you're a strict agnostic, you believe that we can never know if God exists or not.
 
errr, so my thing is after thinking about the whole god thing for many years i've waffled back and forth. and at some point i decided that i wasn't going to think of something that would convince me 100% either way. so maybe there is some sort of god and maybe there isn't. I happen to be comfortable not knowing.
 
My agnosticism shows everywhere in my life. I am often criticized for being non-committal. The truth is seperate from me. I do my best to close the gap between the 2. To do that, I will have to change my perspective a million times over.
 
Nihilistic Agnosticism

Professing ignorance; involving no dogmatic; pertaining to or involving agnosticism.
Click to expand...
This definition of agnostic, taken from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (see Dictionary.com) is one which deserves some comment. It is this formof agnosticism I strive toward. Other definitions suffice, but tend to focus too much on religion.

I seek a form of gnostic agnosticism, something akin to the wisest of Sufi masters who will honestly say, "I haven't learned anything."

Whether or not I achieve it is a different matter entirely.

The problem, as I've stated recently in other topics, is that this view tends to lead to nihilism. I think that part is cultural, though.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Tiassa,

Come, join me as an amused agnostic. I understand intimately that I can never know anything, but find it extremely amusing to indulge in the folly of reason (regardless of my skill (obviously irrelavent?)). ;)

Eh, just making stuff up. It's fun.
 
Originally posted by James R
Can there be degrees of agnosticism? Either you believe God exists, or you don't, or you're not sure. If you're not sure, you're either an agnostic or perhaps a weak atheist. If you're a strict agnostic, you believe that we can never know if God exists or not.
Click to expand...
It seems that agnosticism, like atheism, supports 2 definitions:
  1. I don't know {X}, and
  2. {X} is unknowable
The 2nd form is binary in nature. You can't be 78% agnostic using this definition. On the other hand, there is nothing in this definition that precludes the agnostic from being either a theist or an atheist.

But the 1st form is different and, I would think, probabilistic. As I sit here in a suburb of Chicago, "I don't know" if it's really hot or really cold outside. Furthermore:
  • "I don't know" if physics works the same way in the M51 Galaxy
  • "I don't know" if Purple Unicorns once paraded down the streets of Atlantis
  • "I don't know" if the Daoine Sidhe exists, and, of course
  • "I don't know" if there is, or is not, a God or Gods
There are any number of things that I do not know, and, in fact, any number of things that are unknowable to you and I. This brings us back to the original question: if agnosticism is more than a tautology (I don't know that which is unknowable), what is it's proper scope? If you are an agnostic when it comes to YHWH, are you equally so when it comes to Ba'al, Kali, the Faery Kingdom, and the Unicorns of Atlantis?
 
ReasonableDoubt:

We need to be clear about terms here. The term "agnostic" refers particularly to views on the existence of God. If you're not talking about God, you're talking skepticism, not agnosticism.

If you're agnostic about the Christian god, most likely you're agnostic about all Gods, since the Christian god shares many important features with other gods.

If you're talking about unicorns in Atlantis, they do not necessarily share the attributes of gods. We need to look at them as a separate issue. We may be sceptical about them, but we can't really be "agnostic", unless we think they are gods.
 
Originally posted by James R
ReasonableDoubt: We need to be clear about terms here. The term "agnostic" refers particularly to views on the existence of God. If you're not talking about God, you're talking skepticism, not agnosticism.
Click to expand...
Clarity is alway preferable.
Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

- see Huxley on Agnosticism
- see The Essence of Agnosticism
Click to expand...
Granted, this may not be common vernacular, but Huxley (who knew something about the term) used it much as we would use 'methodological naturalism' today, and was very clear that he did not intend the term to be so narrow in scope as you suggest.

Originally posted by James R
If you're agnostic about the Christian god, most likely you're agnostic about all Gods, since the Christian god shares many important features with other gods.
Click to expand...
Actually, I seriously doubt this to be true. I suspect that most folks who are agnostic towards YHWH/Jesus are atheist towards Ba'al, Osiris, Zeus, and Kali. Whether or not this sliding scale of agnosticism 'makes sense' is precisely what the this thread is about.
 
Knowledge may be a fallacy

The term "agnostic" refers particularly to views on the existence of God.
Click to expand...
Does it, now? "Run" refers particularly to action involving the feet, but has other applicable definitions.

To say that "agnostic" refers particularly to God is a bit circular. "Agnostic" refers more properly to knowledge in general, including the possible foundation of all knowledge, e.g. God.

People who think they can truly know something--anything--are deluding themselves on one hand. To the other, that delusion has practical benefits, as nobody's going to sell me cigarettes if they're busy dwelling on whether or not I or my money exist.

What we purport to know--that is, what we accept to "know"--is only known in accord with specific delineated context.

Think of someone who likes to drive, who reads his auto magazines, who gets out and speeds around in as many different cars as he can. He might be said to "know" his cars. But to the mechanic, who sees before him a guy who can't do much more than change a tire or change his oil, the idea that this person might "know" cars is laughable.

Or wine. Imagine learning from a family tradition how to grow a certain grape and press a certain wine. After fifty years, you might be said to know wine. But this is inaccurate, because what if in all your life, the wines you've consumed haven't come from beyond the valley wall twenty miles to the west? There's a world of wines out there you don't know, despite proficiency in manufacture and refined consumption tastes.

Knowledge is relative. It's why Sufi masters are prone to say, "I haven't learned anything." They may feel wise, they may feel smarter than anyone around them, but they are also acutely aware that just because the Universe has acted a certain way does not mean it will continue to do so, and thus that accumulated knowledge can be rendered as worthless as empty space in a heartbeat.

Every day I find someone who "knew" broken by recent revelations. A whole lot of knowing burned with the World Trade Center. Local violence--shootings in the street, random child rapes, &c.--daily crush people's "knowledge" about the world. Oh, the inhumanity ....

Thus, "knowledge" and "knowing" become very precariously relative terms in the world. True knowledge of anything is nigh impossible.

One of the things this state accomplishes, though, is to remove the sting from "knowledge".

God is, technically, inconsequential. I'll find out one way or another. In the meantime, it is this Universe in which I exist that bears consequence. I should set out to relate to it as much as possible, and perhaps someday, I shall truly know something.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Then Again, It May Not

With all due respect, 'truly' bullpuckie! ;)

To italicize the word 'know' and slap 'truly' in front of it serves solely to make it inaccessible and grease the slippery slope to sollipsism. While it may be a valid philosophic debate, it is also a different philosophic debate.

The issue for Huxley was not whether one could "truly know" stuff in general, but, on the contrary, whether or not one had the right to make assertions about stuff inherently inaccessible to resolution as contingent truth.
 
Bullpuckie? What's new?

With all due respect, 'truly' bullpuckie !
Click to expand...
Same to ye.
To italicize the word ' know ' and slap 'truly' in front of it serves solely to make it inaccessible and grease the slippery slope to sollipsism
Click to expand...
Try again? Maybe? As I'm looking through the post, I do not see the conditions you describe fulfilled. I'm wondering what you're referring to.
While it may be a valid philosophic debate, it is also a different philosophic debate.
Click to expand...
I'll make you the same offer I make everyone: You're more than welcome to advise me as to what I'm allowed to say and what I'm not. Of course, I might hold that to be "bullpuckie", but I always like to extend the invitation.

Because some people seem to think this debate has to do with how you view God, as well, and what a label like agnostic implies. Try reading my post in light of that portion of the discussion, and get back to me.
The issue for Huxley was not whether one could "truly know" stuff in general, but, on the contrary, whether or not one had the right to make assertions about stuff inherently inaccessible to resolution as contingent truth.
Click to expand...
Well, the aspect of whether something can be truly known is vital to the debate. For if the answer is no, then the debate becomes moot.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Re: Bullpuckie? What's new?

Originally posted by tiassa
You're more than welcome to advise me as to what I'm allowed to say and what I'm not.
Click to expand...
I would never consider telling you what you are "allowed to say" nor have I done so. But, since you 'truly know' this already, I can only assume that the comment was intended as mild hyperbole issued for effect.
Originally posted by tiassa
Well, the aspect of whether something can be truly known is vital to the debate.
Click to expand...
I believe it to be a diversion from the discussion at hand, much as would be a debate on the merits of solipsism.
Originally posted by tiassa
For if the answer is no, then the debate becomes moot.
Click to expand...
It might then be said that, either, all debate becomes moot, or the answer itself is irrelevant. Perhaps an interesting question for another thread ...
 
I've mostly stayed out of this debate to this point because I wanted to see the big juicy brains battle it out. Seems that the three of you (James R, Tiassa, ConsequentAithiest) are all very very bright individuals whose IQ's probably dwarf my own. I basically figured you guys would debate all the pertinent issues without the need for my potentially retarded comments. I do have to bring up a point that seems to have great weight to me regarding this debate. Please correct my ignorance, for I do find it embarrasing to seem as such.

Okay, I think if you want to maintain agnosticism, which I claim to do, you need faith. It's simply imperative. Faith in the subjective truths that are so self evident as to nullify one's existence if removed.

For instance:

I have faith that I exist. What alternative is there? What difference does the answer make since it would not change the fact that to me, it sure seems as if I exist.

I have faith that the physical world outside me exits. My perception relieves me of attempts to refute that claim.

I have faith that YOU exist. It seems to me that you HAVE to exist because I didn't invent the computer. At least I don't remember doing so. It makes no difference to me if I did and don't remember it, I still don't think I did.

I have faith in reason. Given the limitations of my intellect, I cannot fathom pursuing a higher truth without what I term "a resonable approach" (trust me, I know what I mean) to the problem. This leads me to the idea that there is no divine authority.. well, reason is what ConsequentAithiest employs when he attacks other arguments. I find much solidity in his arguments, therefore I think his choice to employ "reason" to solve his problem is the only real way to get to a feasible solution. If he just says "you are a dumbass" withouth backing it up, he has no authority. If he backs it up with a path of reasoning, he gains authority. I'll shutup about this one.

I have faith that "good" is the right path. Again, I know what "good" is. It's part of my emotions. It's to my (wholistic) economic advantage (IMHO) to be "good". Eh, I won't bother backing it up further. You likely see the point I'm attempting to make.

Please let me know where I've gone wrong if I have. Is it just that all of this is too arbitrary?
 
Oh, and about everything else my degree of agnosticism varies. For instance, I know my daughters are home doing home things. In reality though, I'm like 99.999999% sure of this, but I am also quite aware that this might not be the case. A myriad of possibilites could lead to utter inaccuracy of the hypothesis that they are home doing home things.

Everything else in life is treated as such. I don't need exact percentages on sureness of everything, sometimes I'm amused not to even think about it. Sometimes out of being an animal I don't bother to cognificate (hehe, sorry... just creative conjucation) my agnosticism of a particular something. It IS however, always in the back of my mind, lurking, reminding me that knowledge is contextual and my context could be WAY, way off.
 
Wesmorris...OT

Originally posted by wesmorris
I've mostly stayed out of this debate to this point because I wanted to see the big juicy brains battle it out. Seems that the three of you (James R, Tiassa, ConsequentAithiest) are all very very bright individuals whose IQ's probably dwarf my own.
Click to expand...


Now, Wes, I'm disappointed. Think of it like a car. A big V8 certainly has the starting power necessary to win most races, but they won't beat the worked 6 cylinder all the time, will they?

A high IQ is useless unless used to think. Consider a rocket scientist who can't debate religion because he's never really thought about it. A lower IQ might end up wiser in the long run because it's owner has considered things more often and more completely than his "more intelligent" counterpart.

*edit - a better example. Some are born more muscular than others. In a race, though, the one born less well muscled but putting more effort into training has a better chance of winning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top