I would just like to point out that the laws of gravity are also made up be man.
Is agnosticism the only honest position?
- Thread starter SolusCado
- Start date
I would just like to point out that the laws of gravity are also made up be man.
Atheism is not just rejection of faith. Atheists are sceptics and they hold their position and reject, because they demand empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is the only reliable way for providing knowledge and information regarding our species, evolution and life; so our survival.
What's been stated in this thread under the claim of the very misunderstood need for 'doubt' looks to me as an emotional space for a hope which 'agnostic atheists ' clearly choose over theistic peace.
You keep saying "Agnosticism is not some apologetic mid ground between theism and atheism" but there isn't even a ground to hold, is there?
Does this make any sense?
By that same notion, many theists would argue that their positions are also observations. The problem atheists have is that they are observations that cannot be corroborated in any reliable manner.
But the statements, the formulae, that are taught in science books, are indeed "made up by man". They reflect reality; they aren't ACTUALLY reality. I realize I am getting into a semantic, if not philsophical point, so feel free to ignore me.
I figured.
The fact that there are no empirical data for the both things, doesn't make your comparement vaild. It's meaningless.
Please explain why the comparisson between two supernatural beings is meaningless.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
The dividing line between atheism and agnosticism is kind of indistinct.
I consider myself a religious agnostic, but in practice my agnosticism comes very close to what some people would call atheism. I can say flat-out that I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, or in any of the various divinities of any other religions. I'll even step that up a notch and say that I'm not just neutral and withholding my opinion either. In practice I'm reasonably certain that none of these mythological figures directly corresponds to anything real.
So why do I consider myself an agnostic and not an atheist?
I guess that it's because I'm reasonably certain that transcendental realities do exist.
Imagine a cockroach. This insect can't understand electromagnetic theory. It just doesn't have the neural equipment, the cogitive capacity. Yet it runs off to cover when you turn the lights on. Its environment and its own being totally transcend its knowing.
Now apply a little induction and consider the plight of the human being. Do we really have any convincing reason to believe that we aren't in precisely the same position as the cockroach? Do we have any justification in proclaiming that man alone has the capacity to take everything in?
The fact that we can't imagine anything that we can't imagine is precisely what we would expect. Our ability to imagine doesn't necessarily mark out the boundaries of ontology. Our ability to imagine might extend well beyond the boundaries of what exists in many cases, but what exists probably transcends our ability to imagine in others.
This leaves me in a position where I strongly suspect that things are happening all around me that I don't understand, and more profoundly, that human beings are unlikely to ever understand. And that gives me a strong sense of the reality and immanence of the unknown. What's more, the unknown might be active right here in this world and in my own being, just as the cockroach is composed of atoms without having the slightest suspicion that atoms even exist.
That's transcendentalism of a pretty strong sort, but it's a transcendentalism that by definition lacks any determinate cognitive content. It's kind of an ontologized question-mark.
I guess that it isn't necessarily inconsistent with religiosity. But it seems to point towards some kind of an apophatic negative-theological religious non-cognitivism.
I consider myself a religious agnostic, but in practice my agnosticism comes very close to what some people would call atheism. I can say flat-out that I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, or in any of the various divinities of any other religions. I'll even step that up a notch and say that I'm not just neutral and withholding my opinion either. In practice I'm reasonably certain that none of these mythological figures directly corresponds to anything real.
So why do I consider myself an agnostic and not an atheist?
I guess that it's because I'm reasonably certain that transcendental realities do exist.
Imagine a cockroach. This insect can't understand electromagnetic theory. It just doesn't have the neural equipment, the cogitive capacity. Yet it runs off to cover when you turn the lights on. Its environment and its own being totally transcend its knowing.
Now apply a little induction and consider the plight of the human being. Do we really have any convincing reason to believe that we aren't in precisely the same position as the cockroach? Do we have any justification in proclaiming that man alone has the capacity to take everything in?
The fact that we can't imagine anything that we can't imagine is precisely what we would expect. Our ability to imagine doesn't necessarily mark out the boundaries of ontology. Our ability to imagine might extend well beyond the boundaries of what exists in many cases, but what exists probably transcends our ability to imagine in others.
This leaves me in a position where I strongly suspect that things are happening all around me that I don't understand, and more profoundly, that human beings are unlikely to ever understand. And that gives me a strong sense of the reality and immanence of the unknown. What's more, the unknown might be active right here in this world and in my own being, just as the cockroach is composed of atoms without having the slightest suspicion that atoms even exist.
That's transcendentalism of a pretty strong sort, but it's a transcendentalism that by definition lacks any determinate cognitive content. It's kind of an ontologized question-mark.
I guess that it isn't necessarily inconsistent with religiosity. But it seems to point towards some kind of an apophatic negative-theological religious non-cognitivism.
Last edited:
I appreciate this thoughtful response, though it troubles me that the agnosticism you speak of seems to have lower standards of skepticism for claims the more arbitrarily they try to rewrite the laws of reality. What I mean by that is what I perceive as a misapprehension of the value of epistemology to sort sense from nonsense. Any claim which requires the invention of a separate “transcendental” reality where contradictory entities such as omnipotent, omniscient beings can exist should rightfully be subject to higher standards of incredulity, rather than the agnostic submission to the "unknowable". There is in the Socratic method a means of peeling back the mental obstruction that is so often infectious in theists arguments.
Epistemology tells us that knowledge divorced from the world of the senses and/or beyond the powers of cognition is impossible. While its true there may be kinks in our metaphysical armor (we aren't infallible, after all) it is perfectly demonstrable that those who make these claims aren't actually being perfectly truthful with themselves. As demonstrated by the behavior of theists who use the powers of their senses and cognition in order to advocate their inferiority. If the claim that there exists higher means of acquiring knowledge of reality were serious, than many theists who make this claim would volunteer for the Helen Keller treatment, going so far as to have their sense of taste, touch, sight, smell, and sound impaired along with a good old fashioned frontal lobotomy in order to demonstrate in a profound and unmistakable way just how seriously they take their claim of the superiority of faith and "higher" reality over the earthly and mundane.
Because, creation of god in human culture is a very complicated issue to say the least. The other is not a complicated issue. It's not an issue.
Please stop demanding explanations from me like I am the first person claimed all this.
Epistemology hasn't reached any such conclusion. You're speaking strictly of Empiricism.
~Raithere
Nice post.
Epistemology leads inevitably to reason (logic) and evidence (empericism) as only valid means of knowledge acquisition. It eschews the abstractions of religion for the precise reason that if contradiction exists, than epistemology no longer serves any purpose, because nothing meaningful could then be said about anything.
Ah, but logic falls into the school of Rationalism, not Empiricism, and in order to establish a foundation for Empiricism you need to posit a priori propositions, which cannot be validated from within.
Nor is Empiricism limited to a single methodology. We might look at Phenomenalism for example.
~Raithere
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
My position is pretty much the opposite of that. I don't have any problem thinking that I have knowledge about conventional mundane matters like whether or not I have any clean socks in my drawer. So I'm just saying that I'm not an agnostic across the board.
My doubts kick in when people claim to possess knowledge about transcendental objects that lie beyond the natural world and/or beyond human cognition. So I'm agnostic about objects (like religious divinities) when I can't understand how a human being could prossibly come to possess knowledge about them.
I guess that my response is that judging transcendental objects (if any) to be prima-facie unknowable is precisely that -- namely holding those claims to a higher standard than mundane beliefs about what's in the fridge. What that means in practice is that the person making the claim to knowledge of transcendental things is going to have to produce a convincing account of how he or she knows what they say that they know. ('It's my faith' or 'It's written in scripture' isn't convincing, in my opinion.)
Certainly problematic.
Maybe I'm uncomfortable condemning people who disagree with me. That would require that I condemn everyone I know, since everyone disagrees with me about something. (Damnable fools!) I'm perfectly happy admitting that I don't know everything and that I haven't got every possible pathway to knowledge charted out. So I'm happier starting out with the 'How in the world can you possibly know that??' question. And yes, I agree with you that in some cases people aren't being honest with themselves. Other times they do produce justifications for their beliefs that they like, but I find weak. In a few cases, people actually win me over and convince me. (That hasn't happened regarding gods or transcendental realities, but it has happened regarding things that I initially found very counterintuitive.)
Unlike many of the more angry atheists, I'm not driven to simply bash Christianity or religion in general. While some aspects of it repel me, I find other aspects attractive (the contemplative/meditative traditions and religious art, for example) and I'm willing to listen to religious people, provided that what I hear is thoughtful and interesting. (I tune out if the response is preachy or inane.)
Last edited:
i agree it has it's place and benefit in society, especially in a historical context as well as a lot of moral allegory which has much meaning and enlightenment.
the only reason it becomes negative is when christianity believes it's the only one or the only source of such things.
i recently saw a program about confucius's life and teachings. it is very similar to what christ represents as far as humane teachings, higher standards, as well as considering what is best for the greater good etc. he also had his own apostles/followers etc.
there are many people(known and unknown) throughout history and many different philosophies that have contributed to the knowledge of the human condition as well as how to cope with it or even possibly find some level or aspect of value, peace or hope.
also, religion/philosphy is not even the only source of spirituality, morals, or finding meaning, enrichment or value. there are people all the time who add to it in their own way and with their own life, epiphanies, ideas and actions.
people tend to forget that all these things do not just artificially stop at a certain time in history with some famous guru and that's that. it's a continuous process and it's even happening now. the sources and tidbits of enlightenment are not always in the box either (as in strictly religion or philosophy section). life is full of many different ideas that are meaningful, even fictional stories can contain enormous amount of values which are still being written interweaved with gems of truth.
Last edited:
That is your opinion, science does nothing of the sort. Actually science tells us our universe had to evolve in such a detailed and precise manner for life to even exist that its often referred to as a "grand design". We cannot explain the actual spawning of our universe at the instant of inflation at all, to some this implies a "grand designer" and to others it may imply a multiverse.. however there is equally no evidence for either claim.
So if you think our universe is one of many or if you think its the only one period.. either way you are speculating.
Atheism as in saying "there is no God period" is not scientific. Agnostics would say "there is no evidence of a God", the agnostic view is the more scientific one. As scientists we would have to be open to all possibilities, either way. We can speculate about intelligent life, supreme intelligence, and even God and still adhere to the scientific method.
Its only when you claim to know the unknown that you get away from being scientific. And I think you my friend are passing off your speculation that there is no God as science... its not. Only that there is no evidence of one could be considered scientific.
Neither side can claim "science" as the path to make any such claims period.
good post.
though i have to add, hypothetically if it's an intentional design; imo, it's much to be desired.
theists seem to think a creator proven would validate something incredible when it could, in fact, prove how inferior it is in many ways.