As an agnostic have you ever wavered in your stance: either growing closer to a theistic belief or becoming more atheistic? And, on whatever scale you choose to devise, where would you now place yourself between these two positions? +++++++++++++++++ 06-21-02, 01:40 PM frankvan The longer I live, and fourscore approaches, the more firmly I am planted midway between theism and atheism. I think it is impossible to have the degree of certainty that either extreme would require, and what's wrong with keeping an open mind? Pretty soon now, if there is a supreme being, I won't have to wonder -- or then again, I might never know. "One thing at least is certain, This life flies. One thing is certain, all the rest is lies. The flower that once has bloomed, For ever dies." Omar Khayam.
06-22-02, 08:12 PM Weeful Hmm, you may be misrepresenting your position a bit , frankvan.
Agnosticism is not about "keeping an open mind". It is as firm a commitment as is theism or atheism. For one thing, the agnostic is convinced that both theism and atheism are wrong. You yourself say that both positions are too sure of themselves, which betrays your own assurance that you know better than both the atheist and the theist that things are not as certain as they think.
I suggest that the agnostic view is as much a faith commitment as are theism and atheism. This may come as a bit of a shock (agnostics aren't used to talking about themselves in such terms), but I can think of no other way to understand the agnostic commitment to the notion that they happen to know that the world is more complicated than the theists and atheists admit. How can the agnostic know that except by faith, or as an unquestioned (unquestionable?) assumption?
Just a thought...
Weeful
06-23-02, 01:47 PM frankvan
quote:Originally posted by Weeful: I can think of no other way to understand the agnostic commitment to the notion that they happen to know that the world is more complicated than the theists and atheists admit. How can the agnostic know that except by faith, or as an unquestioned (unquestionable?) assumption?
Weeful
Okay, then. If I understand you, I am firmly committed to the conviction that I know better than anyone else that I don't fit into any category. I know that I know nothing! Does that make me Socratic?
06-24-02, 12:33 AM Weeful From frankvan:
quote: Okay, then. If I understand you, I am firmly committed to the conviction that I know better than anyone else that I don't fit into any category. I know that I know nothing!Does that make me Socratic?
No, it doesn't make you socratic, it makes you incoherent! smile To say "I know that I know nothing" is flatly self-refuting because you are affirming with one and the same statement both that you know something and that you don't know anything.
I guess what I was aiming at was the idea that agnosticism is somehow a more epistemologically humble or open-minded position than is theism or atheism. It seems that you hold (correct me if I'm wrong) that agnosticism is more intellectually honest than the other polar positions because those polar positions are making a final judgment on reality for which they are not equipped. Who are they to say that God exists (or doesn't)? My point was that the agnostic is equally brazen as the atheist and theist. How does the agnostic know that the theist or the atheist does not have enough information to make their judgments? In my estimation, the only way to make that claim is to know that you have information that both the atheist and theist don't have (or have but won't accept). But how can you know that you have that information except by means of faith?
In other words, agnosticism, atheism, and theism are alike in that they all essentially involve a faith commitment. And no position is more "rational" than the other. At least, there are no rational standards independent of the three worldviews that can decide the matter.
06-24-02, 10:13 AM Elexina
quote:Originally posted by Weeful: Agnosticism is not about "keeping an open mind". It is as firm a commitment as is theism or atheism. For one thing, the agnostic is convinced that both theism and atheism are wrong...
I'm going to have to disagree with you here, Weeful. The premise of agnosticism is doubt as to whether god exists. It is about not being sure one way or another. If you are sure one way or another, then you are a theist or an atheist. Agnostic means you are unsure smf it does entail keeping an open mind. Agnostics may be firm in their belief that they do not know and will not ever know whether there is a god or not. Fine. But there are also agnostics who are agnostics because they have not yet been shown proof of the existence or non-existence of god and are waiting for that.
06-24-02, 11:05 AM Sarai
quote:Originally posted by Weeful:
In my estimation, the only way to make _that_ claim is to know that you have information that both the atheist and theist don't have (or have but won't accept). But how can you know that you have that information except by means of faith?
I've gotta disagree with you here, as well. The agnostic doesn't claim to have information that the atheist and theist don't have. Quite the opposite: he claims not to have what theists claim to have - faith. A theist doesn't usually say that there is "proof" supporting his beliefs, but that he knows in his heart that his God is real. An agnostic doesn't know that in his heart.
A strong atheist, on the other hand, will argue that because there is no solid reason to believe in God, it is silly to do so. They will often say something like, "Do you believe there is a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eater? Why not? Can you PROVE that there is no such thing in this universe?" thus saying that it is equally silly to believe in God simply because there is no evidence that He doesn't exist.
The agnostic probably will agree with the atheist here, but in his heart can't fully reject the notion of God, either.
Thus, he doesn't claim to have anything that the atheist or the theist has. He claims NOT to have something - faith.
And as Elixina said, many of us hope that at some point, we will learn the truth one way or another. I'd sure like a vision from God to set me straight... smile
quote:In other words, agnosticism, atheism, and theism are alike in that they all essentially involve a faith commitment. And no position is more "rational" than the other. At least, there are no rational standards independent of the three worldviews that can decide the matter.
Well, here I do disagree with you. I think agnosticism is a little more rational. Is it rational to believe with your whole heart that aliens exist if you've never seen one? Likewise, is it rational to look out at this magnificently, unbelieveably large and complex universe and believe with your whole heart that there is nothing out there except us? Neither position is rational until we've discovered evidence one way or the other. The rational thing to do is to say, "I don't know."
Unless, of course, you know in your heart that you are right. Agnostics don't.
06-24-02, 01:15 PM frankvan
quote:Originally posted by Weeful: From frankvan:
quote:
No, it doesn't make you socratic, it makes you incoherent! smile
Well, at least I am not completely incoherent to Elexina and Sarai. I am not dead yet, so I see no reason I can't be permitted to wait until all the evidence is in or times run out. Is there some deadline I have to meet?? I know that I don't know how to work this machine, but not because I have made a committment to remain computer illiterate, any more than I am committed to the typewriter, but simply because I feel no great urgency to join either group. Perhaps you feel the need to be surrounded with those who share your beliefs, but I don't.
[This message was edited by frankvan on 06-24-02 at 01:34 PM.]
06-24-02, 01:18 PM Weeful Elexina explains what agnosticism is this way:
quote:The premise of agnosticism is doubt as to whether god exists. It is about not being sure one way or another.
This is supposed to contrast with atheism and theism, both of which entail being sure of something, i.e., whether there exists such a being as God.
Well, this alleged distinction between agnosticism and atheism/theism (I personally find it funny that for purposes of this discussion those positions are in the same boat!) is illusory as far as I can tell. For the agnostic is sure of something, otherwise she would have no basis upon which to critique either atheism or theism. What is it exactly that the agnostic is so sure of (i.e., what is it she has faith in) that makes her conclude that the theist and the atheist are making unwarranted claims?
Elexina hints at a possible answer to my (semi-rhetorical) question when she says:
quote:But there are also agnostics who are agnostics because they have not yet been shown proof of the existence or non-existence of god and are waiting for that.
Here we may be onto something. The agnostic wants proof. In the absence of such proof, the most rational position is agnosticism. But what constitutes proof for anything, let alone the question of God’s existence?
Famously, Rene Descartes began the so-called Enlightenment Project, according to which all things were to be subjected to skeptical scrutiny in order to divest ourselves of all superstition and we would be left with the foundations of knowledge. And on that tiny base of knowledge, by deductive logic, we will build our edifice of knowledge. He claimed to find the basis for knowledge in the famous cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. The idea was that, starting from here, we build our edifice of knowledge through "clear and distinct ideas" and by "infallible steps of reasoning". So for Descartes, we prove the truth of a proposition p by the fact that we can reason infallibly from cogito ergo sum to p.
Thus Descartes tried to base knowledge upon doubt. Doubt everything, and then whatever cannot be doubted is knowledge.
Although we have left Descartes behind in the details, the principle of methodological doubt remains. It sounds to me that you are advocating that we doubt everything that can be doubted. But why can’t we doubt the principle of methodological doubt?
To one committed to this principle, it may seem absurd to question it. Here the agnostic is in the same boat with the theist and the atheist, each of whom have different principles upon which to accept a proposition as true or reject them as not true. Each person—-agnostic, atheist, and theist—-is committed by faith to a way of obtaining knowledge. From the agnostic point of view, the theist and the atheist are "irrational" because, from the point of view of the agnostic, they are not making prudent use of methodological doubt. But the theist and the atheist can, from their points of view, question the validity of that principle. And there is no rational standard, independent of the points of view of the disputants, by which to judge which view is the more rational (unless one side decides to trump the others by claiming that its view represents rationality better than the others, but then we reiterate our problem). Therefore (sorry it took so long to get here), no matter which position you hold, you do so on the basis of faith.
In response to this, Sarai argues:
quote:I think agnosticism is a little more rational...Neither position is rational until we've discovered evidence one way or the other. The rational thing to do is to say, "I don't know."
Here again we have the same position reiterated, but instead of using the word "proof" Sarai uses the word "evidence". But again, I must ask, "What constitutes evidence"? The answer to that question will depend on your epistemological presuppositions (e.g., methodological doubt, fideism, etc.), which each person holds acritically, i.e., by faith. The theist holds that her personal experiences of God along with signs of God’s activity in her religious community, along with the fact that theism bears the ring of truth to her, all constitute evidence that theism is true and therefore she believes it and encourages others to do so. The atheist holds that internal contradictions in theism, along with our scientific heritage gives sufficient evidence for us to hold that man created God, not vice versa. The agnostic holds that the evidence is inconclusive (because of the principle of methodological doubt), and therefore we should withhold judgment until the evidence is more clearly one-sided. Each of these positions involves a substantive faith commitment. The reasoning follows from the faith commitment. Another way to put that is: Our faith is what provides us with our standards for rationality. As Augustine said, we believe in order to understand.
Weeful
06-24-02, 01:38 PM Sarai I amended my statement that it is irrational to believe what hasn't be proven by saying, "Unless, of course, you know in your heart that you are right." As I said, religious people generally do not say they have proof that God exists, but that they know in their heart that they are right. That is faith. Agnostics don't have faith. Maybe God has kept it from us. Maybe we're hard-hearted. Maybe we refuse to be brainwashed. Who knows? Not me.
I do doubt just about everything, to be honest, but I have to live as if few things are true simply because my life would be impossible to live if I couldn't have a bit of faith in my eyes, ears, nose, sense of touch, taste, heart and mind, and neither insanity nor an early death seem particularly nice to me.
I live my life as though my 5 senses, my intellect and my heart can tell me the truth. I do so with faith, and I will admit that. It takes faith to trust even ourselves. And I fully admit that my faith may be misplaced, but I choose it because I need to. Because religion violates my faith in my own ability to reason and my own heart, I can't fully embrace it. But I fully admit that I could be wrong.
I put faith in those things because I have to in order to live a sane life. That's why I don't go around trying to "convert" theists away from religion. Some people need religion to live a sane life.
Does that make me more correct than a theist or an atheist? Well, if there is no God, then the atheist is more in tune to reality. If there is a God, then the theist is more in tune to reality. Therefore, I'm more correct than one of them, but not both, and I don't know which.
Or maybe God both exists and doesn't exist, like Schroedinger's Cat being dead and alive at the same time. Who knows?
But I do doubt, and I even doubt that we should doubt, when I think hard about things. Does it make sense to ask such questions? I don't know. I don't know anything, but I could be wrong about that. wink I'm not even sure that you and I really exist, if you want to push it. Maybe the Buddhists are right, and this is all just an illusion of ignorance.
Annoying, isn't it? No one ever said being agnostic is easy.
06-24-02, 02:46 PM XaurreauX another episode of "The Wavering Agnostic" brought to you by Woody's Woodpecker Polish. Woody's will polish your wood pecker to the peak of perfection and Sudzy Blue for all your laundry needs.
[cue organ music]
Marsha: Oh Steve, I used to believe there was a god, but then I just...
Steve: I know.
Marsha: When I finally understood that there was no god, I just...
Steve: I know.
Marsha: And to make matters worse, last night I woke up after a deep sleep. I looked out my window and saw...
Steve: I know.
Marsha: What?
Steve: I know what you saw. It was a one-eyed, one-horned flying purple people eater.
Marsha: But, Steve...how?
Steve: I saw it, too.
[Creepy organ music: ta da DAAAAAHHH]
Join us again tomorrow, friends, for another episode of "The Wavering Agnostic", sponsored by Waxman's Tomato Paste. Waxman's will make your broken tomatos look like new.
07-01-02, 01:19 AM SandraChan A fascinating thread on a question I have never given too much thought to. I will simply add - very belatedly since this discussion seems to have diued a week ago, the Chambers standard dictionary defintion;
Agnostic = a person who BELIEVES we know nothing of things beyond material phenomena, that a creator or creative force and an unseen world are things unknown and unknowable.
which fairly sums up much of what has been said.
08-01-02, 02:11 AM Yelena Weeful, I believe you are the one that has misinterpreted. Agnosticism is exactly the oppisite of what you are saying. The whole point of it is that you have an open mind and try to find the right religion.
A little like Franknov, Im stuck in the middle. My whole life Ive been raised to believe in Christianity, but have been having doubts the past few years. Im very tempted to abandon all commen sense and logic and go back to being a firm believer. After all, dont I want to spend the rest of my life unsure about what to do. Because as an agnostist, youre spending all your life waiting for a sign or proof of whixh is the right religion for you, which I highly doubt will ever some in my lifetime or even ever. Wouldent I be much happier being a firm Christian? After all, isnt religion more of fallowing your heart rather than your mind?
08-01-02, 02:18 AM Yelena Ive just read everyones posts, and Oh dear, Ive gone cross-eyed.
08-01-02, 01:53 PM frankvan Yelena says: "A little like Franknov, Im stuck in the middle. My whole life Ive been raised to believe in Christianity, but have been having doubts the past few years. Im very tempted to abandon all commen sense and logic and go back to being a firm believer".
Franknov? I doubt that Weeful would accept that a return to "firm believer" status is the result of abandoning all common sense and logic. Nor do I feel that I am "stuck" in the middle. I am where many years of questioning have led me and I am no longer seeking any personal system of religious belief. I see nothing uncomfortable in not "knowing" certain things. There are many things I don't know but also don't feel that they have to be answered during my lifetime. I'm willing to concede that if I searched long enough I might find some faith, but so far I haven't seen any that did not also contain unacceptable inconsistencies and contradictions. I have no wish to try and convert anyone to join me in my secular humanistic agnosticism. I have been married for 59 years to a devout, churgoing Catholic and I can say without fear of contradiction that someone who "knows" that God has spoken to her, or appeared to him, or has other undeniable evidence of the existence of a supreme being, is not likely to pay much attention to the doubting Thomases of the world. I just think we need to realize that we can still love those who believe or disbelieve differently.
08-02-02, 05:28 AM stanbee Thanks Xaureaux for the cosmic relief. Woody shines.
I know not but do not waiver in my ignorance, humility and arrogance before the throne of the Universe.
Religion appears created in our own images. Many beliefs helped to civilize humanity. Sects and factions changed as we pretended to evolve, did evolve and often devolved [old meaning].
Noble aspirations of holiness and right action, except for misguided Shiites, stuck in hatred, eclipsed, jealous. Rape her, her brother is friends with infidel. Good thing "G-d" graced them with oil.
Mahomet marry me, I am 9, almost virgin. I long for subincision for I am demon, multiorgasmic and fear becoming an anachronistic Teresa d'Avila. My bush burns but is not consumed nor satisfied.
Imperfect reflections of the Transcendent. Make your own up for Forgiveness, Fear of Death or the need to Sanctify Laws and Decent Behavior for the unruly. Omit the chauvinism, pontification and ungratifying "pilpul" -feckless religious argumentation. How many angels on the head of a pin; the size of G-d's foot?
Even atheists have called the Holy Name at orgasm, at tribulation or death, 'though the original Unpronounceable One (defiled by greedy priests) wanted foreskin so we could sacrifice some small pleasure and lots of stank in lieu of easy, unblemished animals. Later, dismayed rebels deified the martyred pronounceable Son of compassion, King of Peace. That was not enough. And hatred was carefully institutionalized. The law bringers, post Hammurabi,were scorned for the arrogance of bringing the very Laws. Lex Talionis, eye for eye..., humane standards of punishment. The severity of the punishment fit the gravity of the crime. What can one believe amidst the chauvinism and hatred? Rhetorical, please do not respond.
Fallen, fallen, fallen. Will my moment of acknowledgement get me to "heaven", save me from "isms"? Make my team win?
Always remember, their Imaginary Friend is better than yours -to them.
There is still holiness and reverence in my skeptic heart, but no dogdoo (dogma).
Peace and comfort in whatever you profess, or question.
Forgive my offensive, egalitarian cynicism.
08-02-02, 03:15 PM Yelena Gezz, what the hostility fankvan? I was xommenting on when you answered this question you said
quote: the more firmly I am planted midway between theism and atheism.
thats what i was relating to. the rest of the comments i made were about me, not you.
10-20-04, 06:38 PM jusork Nah, but my stance has always been pretty broad. I think I've always considered complete atheism as just as likely as impossibility to know. So, I've always accepted the same basic range.
10-20-04, 07:45 PM MommyTimesTwo
quote:Originally posted by Weeful:
Agnosticism is not about "keeping an open mind". It is as firm a commitment as is theism or atheism. For one thing, the agnostic is convinced that both theism and atheism are wrong.
This is untrue.
Agnosticism is:
quote:The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
This means that the only thing agnostics are sure of is that they don't know.
This is quite different from both theism and atheism. Theists and atheists are the same in their degree of certainty. Theists are positive that there is a god and his/her/its nature is understandible; atheists are equally positive that there is no god at all.
Agnostics are in my opinion the most honest because we admit we don't know, so we can't say. As an agnostic, I can say that if I were presented with incontrovertable evidence either way on the nature of god, I could be swayed. Can a theist or atheist say that?
10-20-04, 11:15 PM jusork After looking up incontrovertible (and discovering that you were off in the spelling Wink), how can anybody not be swayed from such evidence, even an atheist or theist?
11-08-05, 01:48 AM bunkboy The Wavering Agnostic Such questions can only be treated superficially if you never have experiences that test your beliefs.
You can tell by how often your opinions change. Deeply held beliefs never waver, superficial opinions aren't rooted enough to change.
If you ask the question, Minnesota, it must be because you doubt how such beliefs can be rooted in something substantial.
11-08-05, 10:29 AM newnickname On the other hand, a closed mind never wavers.
A sensible, rational person is open to new ideas, and might change his or her mind with new evidence.
Agnosticism could be seen as the acceptance that there isn't anything substantial.
11-08-05, 03:20 PM bunkboy ...and that would be a terrible way to go through life. Can you imagine constantly shifting moral values whenever a new idea comes along?
I don't call that "agnostic", I call it "being suckered".
Education establishes foundation. New ideas never actually change the way we think; they enhance and deepen our understanding.
11-08-05, 08:12 PM newnickname
quote: New ideas never actually change the way we think...
For me, that would be a terrible way to go through life.
11-10-05, 05:45 PM Karrow I have deleted a number of posts from this thread as they were way off topic and, in the case of two of the posters, contained pathetic childish bickering which contravened the rules.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
