Why would any agnostic be a theist?

A

aaqucnaona

This sentence is a lie
Valued Senior Member
I always wonder why a large proportion a agnostics are theists too. Agnostic/weak atheists abound, and for obvious reasons - since that is the only rational, sensible, honest stance currently possible; but I have yet to met a non-partisan agnostic. Why are there so many agnostic theists though? How can a person who admits the lack of evidence or knowledge for an object then go on to nevertheless include that into his/her ontology? Isnt that a double standard/intellectual dishonesty?

Ps. Please rate yourself on this scale -
1 - Existence of God [Yes, No, uncertain, dont know, etc]
2 - Your belief in God [Do, dont, non-partisan]
3 - Your view on Religion [anti-religious, irreligious, apatheist, empatheist, etc]
4 - Your social stance [militant, weak, anti-theist, etc]

Me :-
1. Dont know [Tentative practical Agnosticism]
2. Dont [Atheism]
3. Apatheist/irreligious [Dont care/critical of religion*]
4. Weak [I play along and keep to myself]

* But not opposted to religion [anti-religious]. Religion can still be, um, useful.
 
aaqucnaona said:
I always wonder why a large proportion a agnostics are theists too.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the proportions are. There might not be a lot of data on that.

But religious mystics are often agnostics (of a sort). The motivation is typically the idea that God is so great, and so transcendent, that God exceeds all of our earthly and finite human concepts.

That leads to a non-cognitive kind of religiosity. In theology-speak, it's referred to as 'apophatic theology' or sometimes 'negative theology'.

See a short explanation here:

http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/courses/rel3432/cataapophatic1.htm

For more, just do a Google search for the phrase "apophatic theology".
 
Yazata said:
I'm not sure what the proportions are. There might not be a lot of data on that.

But religious mystics are often agnostics (of a sort). The motivation is typically the idea that God is so great, and so transcendent, that God exceeds all of our earthly and finite human concepts.

That leads to a non-cognitive kind of religiosity. In theology-speak, it's referred to as 'apophatic theology' or sometimes 'negative theology'.

See a short explanation here:

http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/courses/rel3432/cataapophatic1.htm

For more, just do a Google search for the phrase "apophatic theology".
Click to expand...

Mystics arent big on objectivity, scepticism againsts baises and intellectual honesty, are they? ;)
Btw, intresting info indeed.
Ps. Care to take up the scale?
 
I always wonder why a large proportion a agnostics are theists too. Agnostic/weak atheists abound, and for obvious reasons - since that is the only rational, sensible, honest stance currently possible; but I have yet to met a non-partisan agnostic. Why are there so many agnostic theists though?
Click to expand...

Being an active agnostic, takes more effort than memorizing the key features of a religious doctrine. The answers of universal consciousness is not black and white, so one has to put in time to learn, meditate and ponder and come to their own conclusions. This is hard to do and takes time. It is easier to simply memorize the talking points of any given religion.

This is true of all areas of knowledge, including science. It is easier to memorize the group talking points than put in the time needed to figure out things from scratch. A science agnostic, would question the premises of science and not just accept them blindly. This is hard to do and it is easier and less time consuming to learn the talking points.

Besides not having the time, another reason an agnostic might learn the talking points, is for a sense of shared community. The agnostic in religion or science is often on a path that is often alone. Once on the outside, the herd gets spooked when you try to approach. To be part of the community, so they don't persecute you due to being different, many decide it useful to learn the shared traditions so there is more in common.

To established religion, the agnostic is similar to the pseudo-scientists of science. Neither are not fully embraced. Both types of agnostics ponder outside the box of the traditions and both are always outnumbered by the quick time memorizers of the traditions. The soft atheist can get some crap for letting even one foot leave the fold. The agnostic can get the same thing if they leave the religion.

Interestingly, just as the agnostic is often more acceptable to atheism, that is a pure theists, religion will often have a soft spot for the science agnostic. Both live on the bridge that separates these two groups. They are sort of their own separate race of humans with one foot in both worlds.
 
aaqucnaona said:
Mystics arent big on objectivity, scepticism againsts baises and intellectual honesty, are they? ;)
Click to expand...

I take it that your question is rhetorical and that you don't like religious mysticism very much. So... why do you think that they aren't objective, are biased and are intellectually dishonest? (That's a pretty harsh dismissal.)

As for me, I'm rather fond of the mystics. I just think that if I push on this apophatic line of thinking very hard, there's no longer much point in my using the rather loaded word 'God' to refer to whatever unspeakable transcendence there might be.

Of course, a big difference between me and them is that they often claim to have experienced some sort of non-cognitive revelation of this transcendence, and I haven't.
 
Last edited:
Yazata said:
I take it that your question is rhetorical and that you don't like religious mysticism very much. So... why do you think that they aren't objective, are biased and are intellectually dishonest? (That's a pretty harsh dismissal.)

As for me, I'm rather fond of the mystics. I just think that if I push on this apophatic line of thinking very hard, there's no longer much point in my using the rather loaded word 'God' to refer to whatever unspeakable transcendence there might be.

Of course, a big difference between me and them is that they often claim to have experienced some sort of non-cognitive revelation of this transcendence, and I haven't.
Click to expand...

Hey, good use of the burden of rejoinder to contest rather than complement! As my oh-so-horrible thread on "If there is a hell, I want to be there" shows, its better that way.

I think that way because I was a new ager myself about 3 years ago - the secret, noetics, secret societies, new age mysticism, quantum woo-woo - I had my hands pretty dirty before Penn and Teller began the process of breaking my spell [the process was completed by the God delusion on 5th december 2011, the day when I admitted to myself that I was a non-believer]. And those traits are absent because there is no emphasis on them in the mystic's way of thinking. I didnt ever think of things like falsifiability, parsimony, absurdism,etc before I became a sceptic.

So, why do you like them? Do you 'like' theists too? Where do you draw the line? I dont like people in general, I am a misatrophe and one look at the masses on the subway or the streets is enough to put you in my shoes once you consider the ignorance, stupidity, misinformation and lack of expertise [and even of thought!] that passes for their cognition. I dont hate them and neither am I anti-social. I dislike the fact that people exist in such a condition where they protest GMOs because they are ignorant of the biology which any student would know of, even half a century ago! That is why I suggested that the 'vision' of the masses be changed [in my "Need for debasement of religion" thread].
 
Aaq, I just say I don't know and try to spend time doing good as I am able. The universe seems big enough that I find it reasonable to retain the hope in somehow being rescued, so I retain a little belief in a god. I prefer to view my religion more as considering people special instead of limiting specialness to just humans. My stance on religion is that more dogma tends to make a religion more wrong.
 
elte said:
Aaq, I just say I don't know and try to spend time doing good as I am able. The universe seems big enough that I find it reasonable to retain the hope in somehow being rescued, so I retain a little belief in a god. I prefer to view my religion more as considering people special instead of limiting specialness to just humans. My stance on religion is that more dogma tends to make a religion more wrong.
Click to expand...

Good view, I like it. No offense though, when I say its a little escapist and wishful.

Anyway, are you a weak theist/agnostic/agnostic theist - what?
 
aaqucnaona said:
Good view, I like it. No offense though, when I say its a little escapist and wishful.

Anyway, are you a weak theist/agnostic/agnostic theist - what?
Click to expand...

Thanks. It definitely is wishful, and I need the hope to keep me going.

Agnostic theist might describe my view these days.
 
elte said:
I don't know why you say that. Maybe you didn't get what I've said, but I'm not confused about it myself. :confused:
Click to expand...

well lets define " agnostic "

" a person who hold the view that any ultimate reality ( as god ) is unknown and probably unknowable "

or

" one who is not commited to believing in either the existence or the non-existence of god or a god "
 
river said:
well lets define " agnostic "

" a person who hold the view that any ultimate reality ( as god ) is unknown and probably unknowable "

or

" one who is not commited to believing in either the existence or the non-existence of god or a god "
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks River. Taking the first definition, it looks fine that one can believe in God without knowing for sure. The uncertainty could result in the lack of commitment mentioned in the second definition.
 
“ Originally Posted by river
well lets define " agnostic "

" a person who hold the view that any ultimate reality ( as god ) is unknown and probably unknowable "

or

" one who is not commited to believing in either the existence or the non-existence of god or a god "
Click to expand...


elte said:
Okay, thanks River. Taking the first definition, it looks fine that one can believe in God without knowing for sure. The uncertainty could result in the lack of commitment mentioned in the second definition.
Click to expand...

a lack of knowledge is the basis of the agnostic
 
The knowledge to know that the universe doesn't need a god to exist.
 
If you know that the universe doesn't need a god to exist, why entertain such far-fetched idea as god in the first place
 
AlexG said:
If you know that the universe doesn't need a god to exist, why entertain such far-fetched idea as god in the first place
Click to expand...

this is not the agnostic philosophy

well lets define " agnostic "

" a person who hold the view that any ultimate reality ( as god ) is unknown and probably unknowable "

or

" one who is not commited to believing in either the existence or the non-existence of god or a god "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top