Theory - Agnosticism and Existentialism

[Skyfurnace]

First of all, I'd like to say hello to everyone on this board. I'm a new member and I look forward to many insightful discussions and debates.

I've been recently developing a theory that would explain why science has disproved so many things except for religion.

Most of it can be summed up in this metaphorical story:

John and Alex have been friends for a very long time. They each trust each other and neither one of them has ever lied to the other.
One day, John says, "Alex, I have something to tell you."
"What is it?" asks Alex.
"I have the ability to fly, without the aid wings or machine. I can fly up into the air and maintain altitude for as long as I wish." John explains.
"That's impossible! Prove it to me." Alex says skeptically.
"I'm sorry, I can't prove it to you. However, I want you to believe that I can anyway." says John.
"Well, we've been friends for so long, I have no reason to think that you would lie to me. Ok, I believe you." Concludes Alex.
The next day, Alex tells one of his other friends in a conversation about John's amazing ability. Soon, rumors circulate that John is superhuman and has other equally increcible talents. Many people believe these stories, but there are several who do not. The nonbelievers want more proof before they decide that John has the ability to fly.

Does anyone see where I'm going with this? The whole idea of this story is that rumors can easily become truth to many people. If John hadn't told Alex that he could fly, then no one would be contemplating whether or not he actually could. I fail to see how this couldn't apply to the existence of gods or godesses. No one can say that they are absolutely %100 positive that a deity or higher power exists. Is it not possible that someone, long ago, spoke to his friend of an all-knowing god who created the universe? If this were true, would it not also be true that no one would be asking themselves if there was a god?

Now that I've given you something to think about, I'll tell you about my own beliefs. I'm an agnostic and a partial nihilist. It is in my opinion that no one on this earth has enough information to truthfully declare how the universe was created. As humans, we simply do not have the brain capacity to comprehend something so vast as the universe. Instead, we come up with picturesque little stories that explain everything for us in an easy-to-understand manner. But where's the fun in that? Personally, I would much rather go through life with the acceptance that I do not know the meaning of the universe.

However, I am very unlike most agnostics. I don't believe that my beliefs should have to be forced upon other people, because ironically, I cannot truthfully disprove another religion's beliefs.

Anyway, I hope this turns out to be a very nice discussion about existentialism and your own views about the rubik's cube that is our universe.

[Haleysred]

You have a very interesting theory.

You must then answer the question, who made up this lie? Who was able to manifest this "god" in order to make everyone else believe them? Was the population at the time so miniscule that one person could deceive the majority of the world?

How was this person able to create this story? How was this person able to deceive so many people, what is the motive for thie deceit? When did the lie come about? Was it during the cave man days?

Especially if man doesn't have the power to merely understand the universe, how would one persone be able to create this illusion over hundreds, maybe thousands of years?

The thought is definately unique, but maybe you should consider it more of a conspiracy. Maybe there was a group of people conspiring against the world, and they passed their myths and legends on to their children, so they could pass it on and on and on.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Skyfurnace

However, I am very unlike most agnostics. I don't believe that my beliefs should have to be forced upon other people, because ironically, I cannot truthfully disprove another religion's beliefs.
On the contrary, most religions make at least some claims that are subject to falsification. Young-Earth creationism, for example.

[Dubin]

Originally posted by Haleysred

You have a very interesting theory.

You must then answer the question, who made up this lie? Who was able to manifest this "god" in order to make everyone else believe them? Was the population at the time so miniscule that one person could deceive the majority of the world?

How was this person able to create this story? How was this person able to deceive so many people, what is the motive for thie deceit? When did the lie come about? Was it during the cave man days?

Especially if man doesn't have the power to merely understand the universe, how would one persone be able to create this illusion over hundreds, maybe thousands of years?

The thought is definately unique, but maybe you should consider it more of a conspiracy. Maybe there was a group of people conspiring against the world, and they passed their myths and legends on to their children, so they could pass it on and on and on.
The theist conspiracy theory I got from my intro to Buddhism goes as follows:

EXAMPLE: Birth of the Thunder God
[list=1]
Animals witness thunder and adapt to it. Human witnessess thunder and meets it with fear.
Human wishes to understand why such a frightening crash and boom occurs in order to allay his fear of it.
Human, whose knowedge at that time consists only of how the human mind works, posits that thunder is caused by a mind similar to that of a human, and it is therefore subject to favors.
Human does unto the god what human would have others do unto himself(i.e. sacrifices/rituals/posterior kissing) and, thinking god to be human, expects something in return(i.e. safety from the frightening crash-boom of thunder).
[/list=1]
In a nutshell, humans created gods because they assumed that nature was controlled by the only cause humanity knew of back then.

Of course, I think that any skepticism of the idea that a single human managed to start a chain reaction that fooled all of humanity into theism arises from the assumption that human minds back then actually cared about evidence beyond "post hoc, ergo propter hoc." :D After all...
Originally posted by Skyfurnace

The whole idea of [my] story is that rumors can easily become truth to many people.

[Bob K]

Skyfurnace:As humans, we simply do not have the brain capacity to comprehend something so vast as the universe.

You have stated that this is a statement of your opinion, and is therefore not a statement of fact.

Opinions, nevertheless, are based upon some facts, some line of reasoning that at least partially justifies the opinion.

What line of reasoning can you offer that justifies your opinion that humans do not have the brain capacity to comprehend the universe?

Do you know what the universe is?

Do you know what is the brain capacity of the average human?

Do you know there is a link between the universe--whatever it is--and the human brain capacity such that the human brain capacity is too small to comprehend the universe?

A similar statement is thus: It is impossible for man to know everything.

Is there a human who can prove this statement to be true, or false?

[PaulPritchard]

Originally posted by Skyfurnace
First of all, I'd like to say hello to everyone on this board. I'm a new member and I look forward to many insightful discussions and debates.
Hello :)

I've been recently developing a theory that would explain why science has disproved so many things except for religion.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'disproved religion.'
Many - if not all - religions make claims that have been refuted by a modern understanding of the world.
Many - if not all - religions make contradictory claims.
Few - if any - religions explain anything that can't be better explained by an approach of hypothesis/test/theory.

Most of it can be summed up in this metaphorical story:
While we're talking metaphorical stories, here's mine...

Ug the caveman looks up at the sky one day and notices that the sun moves from east to west at the same rate every day.
Being a human and therefore naturally curious, he starts to wonder how the sun manages to be so reliable.
From experience he reasonably assumes that objects only move if someone decides to push them.
Also from experience, he reasonably assumes that unless someone continues to push the object it will eventually stop moving.

This worries Ug a bit because he really doesn't want whoever it is that pushes the sun across the sky to stop.

Ug expresses his concerns to the rest of his tribe who become equally worried that the Great Sun Pusher in the Sky might stop one day.

The theory of the Great Sun Pusher in the Sky is repeated from generation to generation. No-one really challenges the theory since they don't have a better explanation, but people do add or remove bits so the story more closely reflects what they experience, know and believe.

Eventually someone discovers writing and the current theory of The Great Sun Pusher in the Sky becomes fixed.
2000 years later, Ug's descendants are still arguing over how to appease the Great Sun Pusher in the Sky.

It is in my opinion that no one on this earth has enough information to truthfully declare how the universe was created.
It's my opinion that through continually developing and testing hypotheses and refining or refuting our theories, we can develop a pretty accurate model of how the universe came into being.

As humans, we simply do not have the brain capacity to comprehend something so vast as the universe.
That's an awfully big claim to make without any supporting evidence.

[Skyfurnace]

Thank you all for your feedback. I will now answer your questions:

Haleysred: Try not to think of it in terms of a single person who may have declared that there was a god. The theory is supposed to represent how a claim, without any evidence to suggest that it is true, can be followed my so many people.

I would suspect that long ago, before the aid of modern science, the people of the world were much more suggestible than they are now. It is obvious that many people need meaning to their lives in order to function, and religion filled that purpose, even if it wasn't proven to be truth.

Also, try not to think of it in terms of a group of people attempting to deceive the world. People simply wanted a purpose to live, which is why the other religions don't bother me.

Philosoft: Good point, but what I said was, I cannot disprove any other religions BELIEFS. In other words, I can't tell someone who is part of another religion that their god or gods don't exist. However, we can safely say that many of the stories found in the Bible, etc. are completely false. For instance, we learn that Jesus died on the third day and rose again, yet, in the Jewish faith, they are still waiting for their savior. Why do you think it has not yet come? Because it's quite obvious that the stories of Jesus were exaggerated for dramatic effect. Ostensibly, this includes giving Jesus unhumanly powers.

Dubin: Like I said, I don't mean to say that a single person fooled all of humanity into believing something false. I'm saying that several different people came up with a concept to explain the meaning of the universe so others would have meaning to their lives. For instance, during the middle ages, the slaves basically worked their entire lives and then died, the end. Cathlocism became so popular because it was promised that if they had faith and lived by the rules of the bible, they would be rewarded with heaven when they died.

Bob K + PaulPritchard: What I meant by that statement was that no one person can alone comprehend the entire universe. And when I say comprehend, I mean imagine it in his or her mind. It is difficult as it is to understand just how huge the earth is in comparison with a human being, but the universe is simply beyond our own knowledge. Perhaps some day, very long from now, humans will have developed into an even more intelligent species. But for the time being, we're at a loss.

And I'm not saying that we will NEVER find out how the universe was created, but right now no one knows for sure.

I'd like the thank the people who commented thus far for their feedback. I appreciate it because it has helped me to further develop my theory.

[Thomas Ash]

Originally posted by Skyfurnace
First of all, I'd like to say hello to everyone on this board. I'm a new member and I look forward to many insightful discussions and debates.

Hi Skyfurnace, and welcome to the boards. I'm sure you'll enjoy your time here. :)

I've been recently developing a theory that would explain why science has disproved so many things except for religion.

Most of it can be summed up in this metaphorical story:

John and Alex have been friends for a very long time. They each trust each other and neither one of them has ever lied to the other.
One day, John says, "Alex, I have something to tell you."
"What is it?" asks Alex.
"I have the ability to fly, without the aid wings or machine. I can fly up into the air and maintain altitude for as long as I wish." John explains.
"That's impossible! Prove it to me." Alex says skeptically.
"I'm sorry, I can't prove it to you. However, I want you to believe that I can anyway." says John.
"Well, we've been friends for so long, I have no reason to think that you would lie to me. Ok, I believe you." Concludes Alex.
The next day, Alex tells one of his other friends in a conversation about John's amazing ability. Soon, rumors circulate that John is superhuman and has other equally increcible talents. Many people believe these stories, but there are several who do not. The nonbelievers want more proof before they decide that John has the ability to fly.

Does anyone see where I'm going with this? The whole idea of this story is that rumors can easily become truth to many people. If John hadn't told Alex that he could fly, then no one would be contemplating whether or not he actually could. I fail to see how this couldn't apply to the existence of gods or godesses. No one can say that they are absolutely %100 positive that a deity or higher power exists. Is it not possible that someone, long ago, spoke to his friend of an all-knowing god who created the universe? If this were true, would it not also be true that no one would be asking themselves if there was a god?

Well, I'm not sure that's an entirely convincing national history of religion. It seems to rest too much on the conspiracy theory that religion is just invented by priests for "power, money, influence and the usual" to quote 'The Story of Bob' by someone on these boards (who was it??) I'd say it's much more likely that in a prescientific age, gods (essentially very, very powerful humans) accounted for the inexplicable. Wouldn't you?

Now that I've given you something to think about, I'll tell you about my own beliefs. I'm an agnostic and a partial nihilist. It is in my opinion that no one on this earth has enough information to truthfully declare how the universe was created. As humans, we simply do not have the brain capacity to comprehend something so vast as the universe. Instead, we come up with picturesque little stories that explain everything for us in an easy-to-understand manner. But where's the fun in that? Personally, I would much rather go through life with the acceptance that I do not know the meaning of the universe.

I totally agree. I've always said that neither atheists nor theists like Xians know why the universe is here - the difference is, we admit it and they pretend that they do know. A little humbleness is probably in order.

However, I am very unlike most agnostics. I don't believe that my beliefs should have to be forced upon other people, because ironically, I cannot truthfully disprove another religion's beliefs.

This is the problem I have with you darn annoying agnostics. Few atheists think we can 100% disprove God, except on grounds of self-contradiction. But we can't 100% disprove invisible ponnk unicorns either - it's still reasonable to say we think IPUs don't exist, not that we're IPU-agnostics :) .

Anyway, I hope this turns out to be a very nice discussion about existentialism and your own views about the rubik's cube that is our universe.

I do too. welcome again... :D

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash


__________
Check out my website for all :cool: infidels, Atheist Ground (http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/) - and my broader website on politics, philosophy, science and history - Big Issue Ground (http://www.bigissueground.com/)!

[Skyfurnace]

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
Hi Skyfurnace, and welcome to the boards. I'm sure you'll enjoy your time here. :)[quote][b]

Thanks! :)

[b][quote]
Well, I'm not sure that's an entirely convincing national history of religion. It seems to rest too much on the conspiracy theory that religion is just invented by priests for "power, money, influence and the usual" to quote 'The Story of Bob' by someone on these boards (who was it??) I'd say it's much more likely that in a prescientific age, gods (essentially very, very powerful humans) accounted for the inexplicable. Wouldn't you?


Well, ultimately, I believe that religion was created so that people who have some kind of meaning in their lives. It is easier to cope with life to think that "God created the universe" than simply saying, "Life is meaningless." I, for one, do not need to know why I exist to live my life. I'm satisfied with the information I have, however little it may be.

A good example to back up this idea would be the Greeks and Romans. They had gods to explain almost everything. For instance, the Greeks had the Sun God Helios, who would ride a chariot across the sky to cause the sun to rise and set.

I totally agree. I've always said that neither atheists nor theists like Xians know why the universe is here - the difference is, we admit it and they pretend that they do know. A little humbleness is probably in order.

The problem I have with today's major religions is that they think they have the answers to everything. Neither religion respects the other for their beliefs, so it basically turns into one big existential battle. It's much easier being an atheist or an agnostic; we accept that we just don't know.


This is the problem I have with you darn annoying agnostics. Few atheists think we can 100% disprove God, except on grounds of self-contradiction. But we can't 100% disprove invisible ponnk unicorns either - it's still reasonable to say we think IPUs don't exist, not that we're IPU-agnostics :) .

Heh, I've heard that most atheists seem to have trouble getting along with agnostics. Basically, agnosticism is more like a philosophy than it is a religion. Atheism still leaves the door open to there being a god. In fact, many atheists believe that there is a god, but we do not yet know about it. I just could not classify myself as an atheist, considering that I'm also partially nihlistic. Which means that I don't believe in god, and that life ultimately means nothing. The good thing this type of philosophy is that it's entirely based on fact, unlike another certain religion beginning with the letter 'C.' ;)

I do too. welcome again... :D

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash

Thanks again. :)

[Bob K]

Skyfurnace:I believe that religion was created so that people [can] have some kind of meaning in their lives. It is easier to cope with life to think that "God created the universe" than simply saying, "Life is meaningless." I, for one, do not need to know why I exist to live my life. I'm satisfied with the information I have, however little it may be.

Why, if the gods do not exist/never existed/existed but died/exist but don't get involved in human affairs [Deism Type I], would life automatically be meaningless?

You were born with physiological/unlearned desires, fears and priorities--among them the desire to survive, eat, drink, eliminate, find shelter, find companionship, enjoy sex, reproduce, etc--which give meaning to your life; you then experiment with people, things and events in your environment who/which could realize your physiological/unlearned desires/fears/priorities and through learning you develop psychological/learned desires/fears/priorities for general categories of people/things/events as well as specific pyshological/learned desires/fears/priorities for specific people/things/events who/which can realize your physiological/unlearned desires/fears/priorities, and these psychological/learned desires/fears/priorities also provide meaning in your life.

Desire = Wanting a person/thing/event, or wanting people/things/events.

Fear = Not-wanting a person/thing/event, or not-wanting people/things/events.

Priority = The importance of each desire or fear compared to all other desires and fears.

Skyfurnace:Basically, agnosticism is more like a philosophy than it is a religion. Atheism still leaves the door open to there being a god. In fact, many atheists believe that there is a god, but we do not yet know about it.

A philosophy is a system of concepts (mental representations/ideas of things, objects, people) and principles (mental representations/ideas of causal relationships between/among people/things/objects), plus techniques for using the concepts and principles to solve problems (achieving desires and avoiding fears according to priorities).

A religion is a philosophy (a system of concepts/principles/techniques) which includes a belief in the existence of gods/supernatural beings; also, religion is a philosophy which includes a belief in the existence of conclusive proof of the existence of gods/supernatural beings.

Herein are proposals for definitions for theism, atheism, and agnosticism.

Theism is a philosophy which is a religion which includes a belief in the existence of a single/one-and-only god; also, theism is a philosopohy which is a religion which includes a belief in the existence of conclusive proof of the existence of a single/one-and-only god.

Atheism is a philosophy which includes a belief in the nonexistence of gods/supernatural beings; also, atheism is a philosophy which includes a belief in the nonexistence of conclusive proof of the existence of gods/supernatural beings, or atheism is a philosophy which includes a belief in the existence of conclusive proof of the nonexistence of gods/supernatural beings.

Agnosticism is a philosophy which, after a review of some if not most if not all of the supposed proof of the existence of gods as well as a review of some if not most if not all of the supposed proof of the nonexistence of gods includes a belief in the nonexistence of conclusive proof of the existence of gods and a belief in the nonexistence of conclusive proof of the nonexistence of gods.

Where theism may include a belief in the existence of gods, and where atheism may include a belief in the nonexistence of gods, agnosticism, which, as a philosophy, requires proof--conclusive proof--supporting an assertion/claim of fact, focuses upon the existence of conclusive proof of the existence of gods or of the existence of conclusive proof of the nonexistence of gods, and finding no conclusive proof of either the existence of gods or the nonexistence of gods, takes the default position of rejecting both theism and atheism.

The classification of theism as a belief in [the existence of] gods and atheism as having no belief in [the existence of] gods appears to leave no possibility of agnosticism as a third/middle position, for, like atheism, agnosticism has no belief in [the existence of] gods.

When, however, the existence of conclusive proof of the existence or nonexistence of gods is the focus, then theism can be considered to include a belief in the existence of conclusive proof of the existence of gods, atheism can be considered to include a belief in the existence of conclusive proof of the nonexistence of gods, and agnosticism can be considered to be a middle position of including a belief in the nonexistence of conclusive proof of the existence of gods and a belief in the nonexistence of conclusive proof of the nonexistence of gods and a determination to hold this position until conclusive proof of either the existence or nonexistence of gods is discovered.

If these definitions are accepted, then theism is philosophy which includes a belief in gods and therefore is a religion, and atheism and agnosticism are both philosophies which do not have/are without a belief in gods and are therefore not religions.

Atheism would not be a philosophy which includes a belief in gods, for a philosophy which includes a belief in gods would be a religion, and atheism cannot be considered to be a religion.

[Thomas Ash]

Heh, I've heard that most atheists seem to have trouble getting along with agnostics. Basically, agnosticism is more like a philosophy than it is a religion. Atheism still leaves the door open to there being a god. In fact, many atheists believe that there is a god, but we do not yet know about it. I just could not classify myself as an atheist, considering that I'm also partially nihlistic. Which means that I don't believe in god, and that life ultimately means nothing. The good thing this type of philosophy is that it's entirely based on fact, unlike another certain religion beginning with the letter 'C.' ;)

The Book of Skyfurnace, Vol. 3

Yes, a lot of atheists do have a problem with you <blank> <blank> ( ;) ) agnostics.
:p

There's a very good quote by HP Lovecraft on the subject, where he calls agnosticism "hairsplitting humbuggery" or something of that order...


Myself, I think, as someone else has already said, that the actual difference between most agnostics and atheists is non-existent: neither believe in God, and neither actually believes you cna be 100% certain. So I think the only case where someone can genuinely call himself an agnostic is if he thinksthe existence of Yahweh is exactly 50-50 (which seems a mind-numbingly :confused: position to me.)

Yes, atheism leaves the door open to there theoretically being a God. But the classical definition of agnosticism is meant to do that too, no...? I also find it funny that you call yourself nihilistic and thus not atheistic when atheists are so foten accuses, wrongly, by agnostics and XIans as being nihilists themselves - it seems ironic :D .

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash

[Skyfurnace]

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
Yes, a lot of atheists do have a problem with you <blank> <blank> ( ;) ) agnostics.
:p

There's a very good quote by HP Lovecraft on the subject, where he calls agnosticism "hairsplitting humbuggery" or something of that order...


Myself, I think, as someone else has already said, that the actual difference between most agnostics and atheists is non-existent: neither believe in God, and neither actually believes you cna be 100% certain. So I think the only case where someone can genuinely call himself an agnostic is if he thinksthe existence of Yahweh is exactly 50-50 (which seems a mind-numbingly :confused: position to me.)

Yes, atheism leaves the door open to there theoretically being a God. But the classical definition of agnosticism is meant to do that too, no...? I also find it funny that you call yourself nihilistic and thus not atheistic when atheists are so foten accuses, wrongly, by agnostics and XIans as being nihilists themselves - it seems ironic :D .

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash

Well, I would classify myself as this type of agnostic:

An agnostic is a person who feels that God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved, on the basis of current evidence. Agnostics note that some theologians and philosophers have tried to to prove, for millennia, that God exists. Others have attempted to prove that God does not exist. Neither side has convincingly succeeded at their task.

I do not believe in a god because there is no conclusive evidence to back up the claim that one may exist. Conversely, I cannot disprove the existence of a god although I do not believe in one. So I wouldn't exactly place myself at the 50-50 mark, merely because I cannot disprove the existence of god.

Hope that clears up any confusion you may have had.

[Thomas Ash]

Originally posted by Skyfurnace
Well, I would classify myself as this type of agnostic:



I do not believe in a god because there is no conclusive evidence to back up the claim that one may exist. Conversely, I cannot disprove the existence of a god although I do not believe in one. So I wouldn't exactly place myself at the 50-50 mark, merely because I cannot disprove the existence of god.

Hope that clears up any confusion you may have had.

Well, that sums up my position exactly, and actually the position of many atheists. I think it's a common misconception that atheists feel they can 100% disprove God (though this may be possible throuigh showing the veyr concept to be a logical contradiction.) But, because it's patently, overwhelmingly the more reasonable position to take, we say - as you did - "I do not believe in a god because there is no conclusive evidence to back up the claim that one may exist. " We could say the sane thing about Santa, or the Chocolate Egg Rabbit.

Would you consider calling yourself an atheist if you take this position? Please? For me? ;)

[Skyfurnace]

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
Well, that sums up my position exactly, and actually the position of many atheists. I think it's a common misconception that atheists feel they can 100% disprove God (though this may be possible throuigh showing the veyr concept to be a logical contradiction.) But, because it's patently, overwhelmingly the more reasonable position to take, we say - as you did - "I do not believe in a god because there is no conclusive evidence to back up the claim that one may exist. " We could say the sane thing about Santa, or the Chocolate Egg Rabbit.

Exactly my point, exactly. This is precisely what I was trying to say with that metaphorical story. If you hear about something and don't know if it's true or not, even if there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that it is, why would you believe it? Most religious beliefs defy all logical understanding, which is why I defected from Cathlocism (I was raised Catholic, but I never really took it seriously and I haven't been confirmed [thankfully]).

Would you consider calling yourself an atheist if you take this position? Please? For me? ;)

Heh, sorry, I'm simply not an atheist. I'm extremely close, but my beliefs much closer reflect those of agnosticism. Look at Thomas Huxley's definition of agnosticism, the man who invented the word to begin with:

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.

EDIT: Ah, here, I found something very interesting. Gordon Stein wrote it in his essay "The Meaning of Atheism and Agnosticism":

Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean "neither affirming nor denying a belief in God." Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley's definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic.

[Thomas Ash]

Hi Skyfurnace,

Darn, you let me down. Oh well, I know when something's a lost cause (sometimes) so I won't try and get you to call yourself an atheist. :boohoo: Still, Huxley's definition of agnostic is basically what a ot of atheists, myself included believe, so it doesn't really matter what we both call ourselves if we essentially take the same position.

But it's funny. I always thought Huxley advocated the dictionary definition of agnosticism Stein quotes - believing the question of God's existence (even theoretically) unknowable. I take this to mean not just unknowable with 100% certainty, but unknowable with any certainty. I'm sorry, any 'true' 'strict' agnostics out there, but this strikes me as ludicrous. If you can say that unicorns don't exist, albeit not with 100% certainty, why on earth can't you say the same thing about God?

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash

[John Page]

Originally posted by Skyfurnace
Heh, sorry, I'm simply not an atheist. I'm extremely close, but my beliefs much closer reflect those of agnosticism.
High Sky!

I sympathize - I was agnostic for many years taking the position that while religious beliefs had many flaws, ultimately there was no proof or disproof of a god's existence. What changed my mind to the position of atheism was the growing body of evidence that explained man's experience of the entity "god" as a mental experience only. This evidence includes brain activity patterns of those contemplating god and the cessation of visions after the removal of a brain tumor.

While an existentialist might mourn the loss of god, I believe this is due to feelings of insecurity upon realizing there is no ultimate "good guy" looking out for us.

Cheers, John

[Skyfurnace]

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
Hi Skyfurnace,

Darn, you let me down. Oh well, I know when something's a lost cause (sometimes) so I won't try and get you to call yourself an atheist. :boohoo: Still, Huxley's definition of agnostic is basically what a ot of atheists, myself included believe, so it doesn't really matter what we both call ourselves if we essentially take the same position.

But it's funny. I always thought Huxley advocated the dictionary definition of agnosticism Stein quotes - believing the question of God's existence (even theoretically) unknowable. I take this to mean not just unknowable with 100% certainty, but unknowable with any certainty. I'm sorry, any 'true' 'strict' agnostics out there, but this strikes me as ludicrous. If you can say that unicorns don't exist, albeit not with 100% certainty, why on earth can't you say the same thing about God?

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash

Excellent question Thomas. Now I can see why you have trouble with agnostics.

Well, I'll put it this way: I do not believe in god, but I cannot disprove his existence. Essentially, this means that I do not worship a deity, but if someone had scientific evidence that a god existeded, then quite possibly I would change my position. Even so, I think that the whole concept of there being a god was created by humanity. Even if a god does exist, I would not feel the need to worship him/her. My life is what I make of it, not what god makes of it.

As for the subject of unicorns and other such creatures, I simply think of it like this: Why would you believe in something that you don't know is real or not? We can safely say that on earth, such creatures do not exist because there is no evidence of their existence. Now, you're probably again wondering why I don't think of god in the same manner. The reason is, unicorns and gods are on a completely different level of existence. Unicorns, if they existed, would exist tangibly. You would be able to see a unicorn prancing around in the forest. God, on the other hand, is supposedly inhuman and does not live among us. Therefore, unicorns can be proven false, while god's existence cannot.

Anyway, I don't imagine that god's existence will ever be proven, but rather disproven. It seems unlikely to me that any one religion would be true. If you stop and think about it, if only one religion was true, then wouldn't there only be one religion? ;)

Existentialism gives me a headache. I think I'll stop there. :P

[Bob K]

Gordon Stein:Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean "neither affirming nor denying a belief in God." Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley's definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic.

The fact is that agnosticism does not literally mean a philosophy which 'holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable.'

A- means without, and gnosis means as follows:

gno·sis, n. Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, an esoteric form of knowledge sought by the Gnostics.

[Greek gnsis, knowledge]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

gnosis, n. [NL., fr. Gr. gnw^sis.] (Metaph.) The deeper wisdom; knowledge of spiritual truth, such as was claimed by the Gnostics.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

gnosis, n. Intuitive knowledge of spiritual truths; said to have been possessed by ancient Gnostics.

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

Thus 'a-gnosis' literally means 'without spiritual knowledge.'

Actually, gnosis has also been inferred/implied to mean 'knowledge.'

Thus, inre a subject/issue, 'a-gnosis', or 'a-gnosticism' would literally mean 'without knowledge.'

Thus, agnosticism does not mean, and ought not to mean, it is a fact that it is not possible for human beings to obtain knowledge inre a subject/issue.

And 'a-gnostic' would literally mean 'an individual who is without knowledge of a subject/issue.'

Thus, 'agnostic' does not mean, and ought not to mean, an individual who believes it is not possible for human being to obtain knowledge inre a subject/issue.

The essence of agnosticism as Huxley stated was that he who asserts as fact must prove by means of facts, and if he who would assert as fact cannot prove by facts, then he should not assert as fact.

I.e., if you make a claim of fact, then you must be prepared to offer facts which prove your claim; but if you make a statement of opinion, then you ought to label your opinion as your opinion, so no one would think that you are making a claim of fact.

If an individual claims as fact that humans cannot obtain knowledge of a subject/issue, then he has the problem of, under he who asserts must prove, proving that humans cannot possibly obtain knowledge of a subject/issue.

An individual can state as his opinion that he thinks it is impossible for humans to obtain knowledge of a subject/issue, but he ought to label his opinion as his opinion so no one would think he is making a claim of fact.

There is, however, one funny fact inre opinions/beliefs: they are usually believed for a reason, and the reason is sometimes based upon physical facts which are not necessarily conclusive but somewhat/somehow relevant to/related to the conclusion, to the opinion/belief.

Beliefs in gods can be based upon the fact that the Earth is in a unique astronomical position for the creation/origin/evolution of life, and, therefore, there is a reason why that position is unique, and there is, therefore, possibility that there had to be a god to put the Earth in its unique astronomical position, therefore there is a god who created the unique astronomical position of the Earth. [This is Rush Limbaugh's explanation of his reason for his belief in a god/his belief in the existence of god, as he has stated on air during his radio programs and in his first book, The Way Things Ought To Be, p. 153, "Earth's placement {in the solar system/universe} is precise; and that, my friends, is not the result of chance."]

Beliefs in gods can be based upon emotional reactions to facts, such as death, which can produce the the fear of the unknown and the desire for life after death, and the connection is, therefore, that gods can create both life and life after death, both a physical life and a spiritual life, etc., therefore the belief in gods.

So, there is a reason for a belief, and sometimes that reason is emotional--a fear of, or a desire for, but sometimes that reason is based upon facts, although the necessary connection of the belief to the facts is not always consciously known or understood by the individual holding the belief.

In the final analysis, however, some statements are overtly absurd:

(A) It is impossible for man to know everything!!!

If this is a claim of fact, the claimant has the obligation to prove it; if it is a statement of opinion, then the stater has the obligation to state the reasons he holds it, meaning, hopefully, the facts upon which it is inconclusively based, and, hopefully, not the emotional reasons--the fears and desires--for which it is held.

The fact is that if it is a claim of fact, then the individual making it, being a man, cannot possibly know that he cannot know, etc., therefore the claim is absurd.

(B) Outlaw war!!!

How could anyone police/enforce this desire/command? Would they not have to be prepared to go to war to stop someone else from waging war?

(C) Agnosticism means a belief that a subject is unknowable.

This is similar in absurdity to (A).

Therefore, agnosticism means that he who asserts ought to prove, and if there exists no conclusive proof of a assertion/proposition then the agnostic is not obligated to take a position pro or con, and he can set the question/issue aside until conclusive proof is discovered/developed.

Agnosticism does not mean a belief that a subject is unknowable.

When, inre religion, religion being defined as a philosophy which includes a belief in the existence of gods, which implies a belief in the existence of proof of the existence of gods, the focus is upon belief in the existence of proof of the existence, or the non-existence of gods, then theism/atheism/agnosticism can be defined thus:

Theism: Belief in the existence of proof of the existence of gods.

Atheism: Belief in the existence of proof of the non-existence of gods.

Agnosticism: Belief in the non-existence of proof of the existence or non-existence of gods.

These are the definitions most normal people hold inre theism/atheism/agnosticism, 'normal' being defined loosely as 'non-scholars.'

By these definitions, these focusings upon the existence of proof of the existence/non-existence of gods, agnosticism emerges as a third position, an alternative to both theism and atheism.

And, by being based upon the requirement for physical evidence--either direct physical evidence in the form of the gods themselves, or indirect evidence in the form of the effects upon people/things/events which could only have been caused by the gods, for which claim there is a requirement for proving the necessary connection between an observed effect and the gods as causalities/causal agents, agnosticism thus defined retains its scientific basis, as Huxley intended.

[Thomas Ash]

Originally posted by Skyfurnace
Excellent question Thomas. Now I can see why you have trouble with agnostics.

Thanks. See, it's not just a prejudice (agnostophobia?)...

Well, I'll put it this way: I do not believe in god, but I cannot disprove his existence. Essentially, this means that I do not worship a deity, but if someone had scientific evidence that a god existeded, then quite possibly I would change my position. Even so, I think that the whole concept of there being a god was created by humanity. Even if a god does exist, I would not feel the need to worship him/her. My life is what I make of it, not what god makes of it.

I think this is pretty close to the atheist position - particularly where you state that your opinion is that god was invented = doesn't exist = atheism

As for the subject of unicorns and other such creatures, I simply think of it like this: Why would you believe in something that you don't know is real or not? We can safely say that on earth, such creatures do not exist because there is no evidence of their existence. Now, you're probably again wondering why I don't think of god in the same manner. The reason is, unicorns and gods are on a completely different level of existence. Unicorns, if they existed, would exist tangibly. You would be able to see a unicorn prancing around in the forest. God, on the other hand, is supposedly inhuman and does not live among us. Therefore, unicorns can be proven false, while god's existence cannot.

But what about invisible unicorns? They can't be disproven - they're invisible (like God)!

Anyway, I don't imagine that god's existence will ever be proven, but rather disproven. It seems unlikely to me that any one religion would be true. If you stop and think about it, if only one religion was true, then wouldn't there only be one religion? ;) Existentialism gives me a headache. I think I'll stop there. :P

So it could be disproven? Not that i want to perpetuate your headache ;) .

Best wishes,

Thomas

[Thomas Ash]

But BobK, etymology isn't always an accurate guide to current usage of words, which is what counts.

[Bob K]

Thomas Ash:But Bob K, etymology isn't always an accurate guide to current usage of words, which is what counts.

I agree on the issue of the definitions of theism/atheism/agnosticism.

But now the question becomes thus: Between the definitions of scholars and normal people (humorously defined as non-scholars, as if scholars are abnormal/not normal), whose definitions are most commonly found in current usage?

Normal people often have opinions on religion/religious issues that are more likely to be relevant and accurate than their opinions on theoretical physics because religion in general is less esoteric than theoretical physics.

Normal people tend to use definitions of theism/atheism/agnosticism that are similar to these:

Theism = Belief in gods/Belief that gods exist.

[Related: Theism = Belief in the existence of conclusive proof that gods exist.]

Atheism = Belief in no gods/Belief that gods do not exist.

[Related: Atheism = Belief in the existence of conclusive proof of the non-existence of gods; No belief in gods.]

Agnosticism = Belief that there is no proof of either the existence or non-existence of gods, therefore a decision inre the existence/non-existence of gods must be postponed/suspended until conclusive proof is discovered/Belief in the non-existence of conclusive proof of the existence or non-existence of gods.

[Related: Until conclusive proof of the existence or non-existence of gods is discovered, the default philosophical position that gods do not exist and their existence should not be included in political and social issues.]

Nowhere in the definitions of most normal people do we find any assertion that agnosticism is belief that certain people/things/events cannot be known/are unknowable.

Perhaps one reason for this phenomenon is the fact that most normal people realize that to claim a person/thing/event is unknowable a person must have at least some knowledge of the people/things/events at issue, which then defeats/negates the claim that the person/thing/event is unknowable.

Otherwise, the primary reason for this phenomenon is that most normal people regard agnosticism to be a belief in the non-existence of conclusive proof of the existence or non-existence of gods and do not regard agnosticism to be a philosophy in which are found beliefs that some people/things/events are unknowable.

Also, nowhere in the definitions of most normal people do we find the idea that atheism is no belief in gods in contrast to the idea that theism is belief in gods.

Thus, the continuum thus:

Theism = Belief in Gods ----------------- Atheism = No belief in gods

... does not hold for most normal people.

If definitions of terms cannot be voted upon democratically by normals as well as scientists/scholars for esoteric stuff such as theoretical physics, perhaps definitions of terms CAN be voted upon democratically by normals in disregard for the definitions of scholars for less esoteric stuff such as religion, namely, theism/atheism/agnosticism.

Certainly, in current usage by normals, the definitions of theism/atheism/agnosticism differ considerably from the definitions of scholars.

If scholars were to accept the current usage definitions of normals of theism/atheism/agnosticism, then, those definitions being less esoteric and therefore less confusing than word salads (a psychiatric term derived from the observation of the speech patterns of schizphrenics, particularly hebephrenic schizophrenics, in which words are linked without regard for their meanings) such as strong v. weak theism/atheism/agnosticism/etc., then the scholarly definitional hairsplitting of theism/atheism/agnosticism (which normals are unwilling to learn because those esoteric definitions are too much trouble to learn and are less decriptive of reality and because their own definitions are easier to learn and make more sense because they are more descriptive) can be avoided if not entirely eliminated.

And if the definitions or normals are accepted by scholars, then one-and-all will be less likely to waste time asking for definitions of terms when discussing theism/atheism/agnosticism.

[Thomas Ash]

Hi BobK,

Well, I slightly object to being called abnormal ;) . I agree that hte definitions you gave are in common usage, but they have a fundamental flaw which pretty much makes them unworkable and confused, no matter how common they are. This is that most atheists and many Christians meet the definition of agnostic at the same time, while clearly having an (a)theistic belief.

Best wishes,

Thomas Ash