Agnostic Theism

[TBE]

By definition, an Agnostic Theist is one who

“believes the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but regards the truth or falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in.”

Lets extend this further to Agnostic Catholicism,

In the sense that one holds personally that the Church is true, and that God is the true god, yet philosophically states/admits that there is no observable non-personal evidence for the existence of said God, or the truth of that God over, say, Buddha.

What would be everyone’s opinion on this kind of worldview?

 

[Sufjon]

By definition, an Agnostic Theist is one who

“believes the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but regards the truth or falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in.”

Lets extend this further to Agnostic Catholicism,

In the sense that one holds personally that the Church is true, and that God is the true god, yet philosophically states/admits that there is no observable non-personal evidence for the existence of said God, or the truth of that God over, say, Buddha.

What would be everyone’s opinion on this kind of worldview?

Hi TBE: I think it’s an interesting line of thought. If I’m reading this correctly, I think you’re saying that God can be known in many ways and not exclusively in one way or the other. If I’m reading you right, then personally, I agree with you. Of course, my agreement doesn’t carry with it any sort of authority. Fortunately, I am also sure that we don’t need anyone’s authority to find God.

I see you are new to the forum, so let me extend my warmest welcome to you!

Your friend
Sufjon

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[freethinker83]

I think agnostic is a widely misunderstood term. It is my understanding that agnosticism has to do with knowledge while (a)theism has to do with belief.

For example, I do not believe there is a god therefore I am an atheist. I also do not know 100% that a god does not exist which would also make me an agnostic.

A person could believe there is a god and therefore be a theist. That person could also not know 100% that a god does exist, therefore (s)he would also be an agnostic.

 

[fhansen]

By definition, an Agnostic Theist is one who

“believes the proposition at least one deity exists is true, but regards the truth or falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in.”

Lets extend this further to Agnostic Catholicism,

In the sense that one holds personally that the Church is true, and that God is the true god, yet philosophically states/admits that there is no observable non-personal evidence for the existence of said God, or the truth of that God over, say, Buddha.

What would be everyone’s opinion on this kind of worldview?

Well, it seems a lot like a non-world view. To regard something as true and at the same time to regard the particular truth to be unknowable sounds a lot like double-speak, doesn’t it? And even if you could prove the existence of a god, what good would it be if nothing of the nature or will of that god could be known-if that god has no specific attributes or person-ality?

 

[Whadyamean]

Well, it seems a lot like a non-world view. To regard something as true and at the same time to regard the particular truth to be unknowable sounds a lot like double-speak, doesn’t it? And even if you could prove the existence of a god, what good would it be if nothing of the nature or will of that god could be known-if that god has no specific attributes or person-ality?

It is not double speak at all. It is the recognition of the inherent weakness in faith and intellect both as limited means of perception and understanding. Both, in humans, is necessarily symbolic and vastly incomplete, both in material and transcendental terms. so the agnostic theist is merely in a position of honesty well beyond the piety of the faithful who habitually and arrogantly claim to “know.”

For sure there is something about knowing one’s faith that is valid. In other words one “knows” the consistency of the dogma and tenets they chose to subscribe to, either through habit or deliberation. But that in no way admits to an actual knowledge of God other than an object of thought. God is not an object. Therefore God cannot within the limits of mind be known, only hypothesized about, and that is the disadvantage of faith, which is a threshold of spiritual practice only, because of these limitations.

 

[JDaniel]

It is not double speak at all. It is the recognition of the inherent weakness in faith and intellect both as limited means of perception and understanding. Both, in humans, is necessarily symbolic and vastly incomplete, both in material and transcendental terms. so the agnostic theist is merely in a position of honesty well beyond the piety of the faithful who habitually and arrogantly claim to “know.”

Whadyamean:

Do you think that that same principle can be applied to other forms of knowledge that we take on both? For example, the love of parents or children? Or, the truth of a wife’s or husband’s professed love? If so, then we can never be certain of those either, right?

For sure there is something about knowing one’s faith that is valid. In other words one “knows” the consistency of the dogma and tenets they chose to subscribe to, either through habit or deliberation. But that in no way admits to an actual knowledge of God other than an object of thought. God is not an object. Therefore God cannot within the limits of mind be known, only hypothesized about, and that is the disadvantage of faith, which is a threshold of spiritual practice only, because of these limitations.

Let’s deal with my earlier questions first. Then, perhaps we’ll return to the immediately aforesaid.

God bless,
jd

 

[fhansen]

It is not double speak at all. It is the recognition of the inherent weakness in faith and intellect both as limited means of perception and understanding. Both, in humans, is necessarily symbolic and vastly incomplete, both in material and transcendental terms. so the agnostic theist is merely in a position of honesty well beyond the piety of the faithful who habitually and arrogantly claim to “know.”

“Piety of the faithful” is a purely speculative idea-from one who lacks that faith. To admit to human weakness is one thing-to acknowledge God’s power to overcome it is another. To say “I don’t know”, OTOH, is honesty-and can be the beginning of knowledge of God.

My point was that, on what basis would one claim to believe in a deity if they lacked faith (considered as a supernatural gift), and they believed God to be unknowable. Maybe I answered my own question, though. The faith could still be a gift, though nascent, not yet realized or fully accepted.

For sure there is something about knowing one’s faith that is valid. In other words one “knows” the consistency of the dogma and tenets they chose to subscribe to, either through habit or deliberation. But that in no way admits to an actual knowledge of God other than an object of thought. God is not an object. Therefore God cannot within the limits of mind be known, only hypothesized about, and that is the disadvantage of faith, which is a threshold of spiritual practice only, because of these limitations.

The limitations can only be overcome if 1) God exists, and 2) He chooses to overcome those limitations in us. A finite being like ourselves simply cannot comprehend an infinite and infinitely superior being such as God. God *is *an object, though, in that He exists like everything else we experience. You’re right, religion consists of teachings about God. But faith is the beginning of the experience of God. Religion can only guide us to Him-we must ask, seek, and knock thereafter, and He answers. Even then, however, our knowledge isn’t complete, even when God chooses to reveal Himself in direct, intuitive ways such as He’s done with “Catholic mystics”, et al, from time to time. So St Paul says in 1 Cor 13, **Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. **

 

[ASimon]

To me, the only intellectually honest positions in the God debate are agnostic theism and agnostic atheism. To the point where I don’t even credit ‘Agnosticism’ as being a valid position on its own.

 

[JDaniel]

To me, the only intellectually honest positions in the God debate are agnostic theism and agnostic atheism. To the point where I don’t even credit ‘Agnosticism’ as being a valid position on its own.

ASimon:

So you would concur that “love” can only be believed agnostically?

God bless,
jd

 

[ASimon]

ASimon:

So you would concur that “love” can only be believed agnostically?

God bless,
jd

No. I think it’s possible to prove that somebody loves something or somebody else by examining their brain states with an fMRI scanner. It can be “known,” and so believed because it’s known.

But short of having a $4 million dollar doorstop pointed at someone’s head at the moment they say they love something or someone, I think we’re stuck taking their word for it.

 

[Whadyamean]

Whadyamean:

Do you think that that same principle can be applied to other forms of knowledge that we take on both? For example, the love of parents or children? Or, the truth of a wife’s or husband’s professed love? If so, then we can never be certain of those either, right?

No, in fact we can’t. We assume it based on our perceptions. I am certain that you are not so naive as to be ignorant of one sided loves, mispercieved loves, and other phenomenon in the emotional realm that are the material of drama. There is only one thing, in fact, that a human can know. all the rest is assumption based on accepted premises and relative values. How could it be otherwise? There are far subtler versions of the blind men and the elephant than the teaching tale.

Unfortunately, this bit of information is left in the realm of ignorance until such time as one experiences what it is to be awake with no awareness of anything other than their identity. When it is known as a fact of existence that all thinking as we experience it is a veneer over that state, we are neither mature nor full aware of a fundamental fact about the human mind and it’s unfortunate sense of identity dependent on circumstances. Herein lies the root need of the kind of poverty that is misunderstood in vows, etc.

And only the esoteric departments or factions of the main line religions even begin to take this line of practice seriously. Wasn’t it Avila’s remarkable works that almost succumbed to the tender ministrations of the Inquisition? For my part, I don’t believe that Saints who had actual realizations in this area dared to, or perhaps in kindness refrained form, direct exposition of their discoveries, though there appear to be a few exceptions.

 

[Whadyamean]

“Piety of the faithful” is a purely speculative idea-from one who lacks that faith.

In some cases that may be true, Not in mine as until I became aware of the deeper meanings inherent in the Faith, I was an example, I am told, of piety.

To admit to human weakness is one thing-to acknowledge God’s power to overcome it is another. To say “I don’t know”, OTOH, is honesty-and can be the beginning of knowledge of God.

Yes, that is why, though it is still off track, atheism can in some cases be a more mature position for an individual than “faith.”

My point was that, on what basis would one claim to believe in a deity if they lacked faith (considered as a supernatural gift), and they believed God to be unknowable. Maybe I answered my own question, though. The faith could still be a gift, though nascent, not yet realized or fully accepted.

Faith, as I understand it, is a wonderful entry level practice, similar to taking a parable at face value without diving into it for deeper meanings.

The limitations can only be overcome if 1) God exists, and 2) He chooses to overcome those limitations in us.

The way that is stated appears to presume a personal God. There may be such an Entity, it even has a name, but it is not the Supreme.

A finite being like ourselves simply cannot comprehend an infinite and infinitely superior being such as God.

Amen!

God *is *an object, though, in that He exists like everything else we experience.

Thoughts about God are objectifications of a symbol for something not apprehendable by mortal mind. God as Essence is not an object, as hopefully you will come to see.

You’re right, religion consists of teachings about God. But faith is the beginning of the experience of God. Religion can only guide us to Him-we must ask, seek, and knock thereafter, and He answers. Even then, however, our knowledge isn’t complete, even when God chooses to reveal Himself in direct, intuitive ways such as He’s done with “Catholic mystics”, et al, from time to time. So St Paul says in 1 Cor 13, **Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. **

Yes, but when is that “then?” As long as language such as you use is utilized, the framework for a deeper understanding is not fully sound.

 

[fhansen]

The way that is stated appears to presume a personal God. There may be such an Entity, it even has a name, but it is not the Supreme.

But how do you know? And isn’t it presumptuous to maintain that a personal God would of necessity be inferior to an impersonal, perhaps less knowable, one?

Thoughts about God are objectifications of a symbol for something not apprehendable by mortal mind. God as Essence is not an object, as hopefully you will come to see.

An existent, at least, or even a term like “essence” has no real meaning.

Yes, but when is that “then?” As long as language such as you use is utilized, the framework for a deeper understanding is not fully sound.

“Then” is the “beatific vision”, a direct intuitive knowledge of that which we’re drawn to.

 

[Whadyamean]

But how do you know? And isn’t it presumptuous to maintain that a personal God would of necessity be inferior to an impersonal, perhaps less knowable, one?

“knowledge” as you use it here is relative. God is not relative; God is All.

An existent, at least, or even a term like “essence” has no real meaning.

In fact, it is all that is real.

“Then” is the “beatific vision”, a direct intuitive knowledge of that which we’re drawn to.

What appears as being drawn to is the intuitive knowledge that “I am more than this.” Ask who it is that is drawn. Ask intensely until all possibilities have been rejected but One. You will not be deceived.

 

[tonyrey]

No. I think it’s possible to prove that somebody loves something or somebody else by examining their brain states with an fMRI scanner. It can be “known,” and so believed because it’s known.

Then presumably you believe we are biological robots!

 

[Whadyamean]

No. I think it’s possible to prove that somebody loves something or somebody else by examining their brain states with an fMRI scanner. It can be “known,” and so believed because it’s known.

But short of having a $4 million dollar doorstop pointed at someone’s head at the moment they say they love something or someone, I think we’re stuck taking their word for it.

Uh… Again with the belief = knowledge thing??? Really?

The fundamental Nature of Man is Love. But as for individuated examples of what might be labeled “love” we do not “know” other than that real Love, unconditional Love, knows itself. But in English, we have a poverty of words that refer to Love and its nuances. We also have a poverty of training critical thinking and other disciplines and a phenomenal lack, imo, of personal maturity which stems primarily from arguing with reality.

 

[fhansen]

The fundamental Nature of Man is Love.

That’s a pretty dogmatic statement- I’m not sure how we could know this. Either way, why do you think people don’t express this quality very well? In fact we seem to oppose it more often than not. I mean, what happened?

 

[Whadyamean]

That’s a pretty dogmatic statement- I’m not sure how we could know this. Either way, why do you think people don’t express this quality very well? In fact we seem to oppose it more often than not. I mean, what happened?

I am happy for you that you are insulated from the news and other such. In my experiences unconditional love practiced as an act of deliberate awareness is an exceptionally rare thing. I can count on two hands and a few toes the people alive in the world who I feel I can confidently say do this. There are many who are close. But most “love” in ignorance or through emotion, or perhaps through intuition.

And yes, I am sure that it appears to be a dogmatic statement, but it is based on a dynamic that is yet little known in the world despite thousands of years of exemplification and, unfortunately, misconstrued Scripture of many ilks.

but the reason for and source of my statement is accessible to anyone who can get past their belief system. But as I know form my practice, people far rather own the devil of their limitations than risk change. And rightly so: this pursuit is one that necessarily devastates the impression the vast majority of folks carry as their world picture. I assure you that that picture is based on an illusion rarely seen through.Once seen through, the world literally changes. Not because it is different itself, but because the individual actually wakes up from their walking dream. This has always been so, and has most consistently been misunderstood. Go re-read Jesus, as limited as that presentation necessarily is. He knows whereof He speaks!

 

[fhansen]

I am happy for you that you are insulated from the news and other such. In my experiences unconditional love practiced as an act of deliberate awareness is an exceptionally rare thing. I can count on two hands and a few toes the people alive in the world who I feel I can confidently say do this. There are many who are close. But most “love” in ignorance or through emotion, or perhaps through intuition.

I’m not sure you understood. My question was, ‘what happened?’ IOW, how did we go from, “The fundamental Nature of Man is Love” to the unloving world we have now?

 

[Whadyamean]

I’m not sure you understood. My question was, ‘what happened?’ IOW, how did we go from, “The fundamental Nature of Man is Love” to the unloving world we have now?

Fundamental nature doesn’t necessitate full expression. Gold can be gold whether it’s a lump or a fabulous crown or lovely utilitarian bowl or cup. It can as well be buried undiscovered in the ground, or in our case, in the sense perceptions that we conjure to make us belive we are human and falsely believe we are awake to what we really are.Gold is just what it is. Same with folks. Whatever gold they are, it still takes training to be human. It takes even more training to be humane. It takes extraordinary training to discover the light side unencumbered by limiting qualifiers. But it is possible and is our nature to do so either by work or by Grace.

Ever since our entry into awareness as a species, along with the possibility inherent in that of conscious awareness, we have observed that the path of maturity is an arc away from personal ego and towards Deity. Chardin attempted to describe that in some terms, but had been unbeknownst beaten to it by the one he called Savior, though he and his ilk misunderstand what that might in actuality mean. Ken Wilber did a far better job because he was free of the limitations of feeling that he would fry in hell if he stopped arguing with reality. but he has only formulated in a way relative to Western perceptions what has been known for eons by many of both East and West and Up and Down. Man is conscious awareness primarily, and is programmed by local necessity to a hard view of what works. Unfortunately, that works in the original family environment, even if that is a dysfunctional “works.” We are creatures of our training until we can get past our identification with our acquired mentality and actually see what we are before our programming. That is why any really useful spiritual practice has traditionally been designed to defeat discursive thinking and make the seeker aware of awareness as awareness, and not of its contents. That is the actual meaning of “poverty” in the spiritual sense. One learns through experience that one does not own anything, including thoughts about who or what they are. Then practice can actually begin.

And this is why religion sometimes is an agent in defeating actual practice. It insists on a particular form that the gold has to be in. It doesn’t draw attention to the fact that each one is always already gold: each one is always already made in the image and likeness of God. Where is the original sin in that? It is in that one forgets who and what they really are. And while good works and service are very necessary, the point of those is again to direct attention towards what is not personal ego and to ultimately discover what that means in reality, what it means in terms of the reason for the Great Commandment.