How is it possible to be agnostic?

[Mirdath]

freesoulhope asked me this in another thread, but I felt it’d have a better home over here.

First, what is agnosticism? ‘Not knowing’, literally – that’s weak agnosticism. It’s kind of an intellectual sloth, at least on the subject of religion.

Strong agnosticism postulates that knowing is impossible. Not only don’t we know whether there is a deity or deities, we cannot know – it’s far beyond the limits of our perception. This is the position I subscribe to.

Philosophically, strong agnosticism is actually quite a defensible position – in fact, the most defensible (other than weak agnosticism, which generally wouldn’t bother to show up to the debate anyway) as it does not require Faith. Both theism and atheism are expressions of faith: one in the divine, the other in the lack of the divine. Neither side is able to prove itself right to the satisfaction of anyone else, because fundamentally they both require one to accept ‘God exists/does not exist’ as a statement of faith.

However, it’s quite easy to say ‘we cannot know whether the divine exists’: it’s unfalsifiable, because to make it untrue one has to accept that knowledge on faith. Certainly, there are many attempted logical proofs going in both directions – but I have yet to see one without at least one glaring flaw.

So that’s a start, at least – I’m not entirely sure if I answered the exact question freesoulhope asked. If not, or if anyone has other questions, fire away

 

[jack_hawkins]

agnosticism is just a pompous title for indecision and confusion
it is no more an intellectual position than not being able to choose between sugar puffs and shredded wheat
a position that actually states nothing is obviously very defensible

 

[martinporres]

Mirdath, would you ascribe to the belief that if one declares himself an agnostic, he cannot later become one of the faithful (e.g., faith in God)?

I guess my question really is, as an agnostic, have you closed yourself to the possibility of the Holy Spirit working within you to change your heart? I mean, the whole nature of faith is that its workings are mysterious. I would say and I think we could agree that agnostics are waiting for something – but maybe we’d disagree whether or not their doors are open or closed. And if they’re closed, what is the difference between atheism and agnosticism, in this context?

Perhaps your doors are open – I’d like to think so seeing as how you’re here on CA Forums.

deo gratias.]

 

[Imryl]

it is no more an intellectual position than not being able to choose between sugar puffs and shredded wheat
a position that actually states nothing is obviously very defensible

The same can be just as easily said about catholicism.

Didn’t your mother ever tell you, “If you don’t have anything nice to say. don’t say anything at all”.

 

[Mirdath]

Mirdath, would you ascribe to the belief that if one declares himself an agnostic, he cannot later become one of the faithful (e.g., faith in God)?

Not at all! Just because I lack the capacity for faith right now doesn’t mean I’m unable to pick it up later – although from here I have to say I don’t see that happening to me specifically.

I guess my question really is, as an agnostic, have you closed yourself to the possibility of the Holy Spirit working within you to change your heart? I mean, the whole nature of faith is that its workings are mysterious. I would say and I think we could agree that agnostics are waiting for something – but maybe we’d disagree whether or not their doors are open or closed. And if they’re closed, what is the difference between atheism and agnosticism, in this context?

I don’t know if ‘waiting’ is the proper term – I’m not hanging around at spiritual loose ends. But no, I’m not entirely closed to the possibility of belief (either theistic or atheistic); I just haven’t seen any kind of conclusive evidence either way and don’t think it exists. I don’t intend to change my ways or beliefs, but I won’t be kicking and screaming if it does somehow happen.

Remember, agnosticism of the sort I’m talking about admits the possibility but not our capacity to see whether or not God is really around – sort of like Schroedinger’s Cat.

 

[freesoulhope]

So that’s a start, at least – I’m not entirely sure if I answered the exact question freesoulhope asked. If not, or if anyone has other questions, fire away

You have to take a side; agnostism cannot be taken as some sort of middle ground. It s just as much a belief system as both competing sides; It is the belief that one should not choose due to lack of empirical evidence. This may seem reasonable at first, however, I will show why it is logically imposible to not take a side.

The reason i asked you the qeustion, is because, when you say that your agnostic, your saying that it is irrational to dedicate one’s-self to either side with out evidence, because none have any proof. But it is illogical to take the title of agnostic, because it usely means that your “atheist” untill a theist can prove otherwise. To be agnostic is to settle for ignorance; but you are forced to take a side anyway, since there is no such thing as a middle ground. Agnostism can only mean that you are faithless about either side but you choose one that is more “pleasing” or reasonable to you, which i assume is “atheism” if im not mistaken? can you see a parodox emerging?

Agnostism is not a reasonble position if one takes it as a permenant position pending empirical evidence, since there is never going to be any empiracal evidence as you have said; and then you have to justify why it is more reasonable to settled for atheism or theism. If there is a possiblity of a God, isnt it more reasonable to base a belief on the most reasonable “possiblity” that best reflects the reality we are in?

Its better to say that your an atheist that is agnostic about your position, or a theist that is agnostic about being a theist. In otherwords its about doubt.

 

[freesoulhope]

Since agnosticism compells one to be atheist,(atheism being the side that demands less responsiblity for ones actions or thoughts), you are in fact an atheist that is agnostic about believing in a God, rather then somebody that is agnostic about believing in theism or atheism. But you said that it is unreasonable to have faith in something that is unprovable emprically; you said yourself that atheism is a belief system like theism…

… as it does not require Faith. Both theism and atheism are expressions of faith

yet you have settled for atheistic belief system; the nonbelief in God, or the “i cannot be bothered to believe” syndrome.

Would you say that you are an unreasonable person? And would you agree that Agnostic thought, is a state of mind that wishes to remain atheist, using the lack of empirical evidence as an excuse

If im wrong, or sound harsh, i apoligise; but this is what it seems like to me.

Peace.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Saying that the existence of God cannot be proven isn’t an intellectual position, it is pretty obviously self-evident!
Someone who in the face of insufficient data refuses to come to any conclusion is not the sort of person one would want as one’s doctor for example. As a physician I can pontificate in a pseudo-intellectual fashion all I like but the patient still requires a treatment regardless of the fact that one can never be 100% sure of a diagnosis.

 

[Mirdath]

The reason i asked you the qeustion, is because, when you say that your agnostic, your saying that it is irrational to dedicate one’s-self to either side with out evidence, because none have any proof. But it is illogical to take the title of agnostic, because it usely means that your “atheist” untill a theist can prove otherwise.

That’s only your perception of it. Of course I follow no organized religion – I couldn’t very well do that and claim to be agnostic, could I? And atheism by its very nature is not really ‘organizable’. But it does not mean I’m basically atheist – I’m functionally irreligious. The possibility that there is a God or gods sounds just as reasonable to me as the possibility that there’s no such thing. I simply believe it’s impossible to know.

To be agnostic is to settle for ignorance; but you are forced to take a side anyway, since there is no such thing as a middle ground. Agnostism can only mean that you are faithless about either side but you choose one that is more “pleasing” or reasonable to you, which i assume is “atheism” if im not mistaken?

You might be surprised. I’ve been known to toss out a prayer on the off-chance there’s something listening – not often, but I’ve done it. Further, I do know the feeling of ‘holiness’ (or at least, I guess that’s a good word for it) even if I do not know that of ‘faith’. But neither of those is enough reason for me to sign up to an organized religion. I have given the idea of deity a good deal of thought, and what I would call God is rather different from the deities worshiped by any organized religion I know of, with the possible exception of Zoroastrianism.

Agnostism is not a reasonble position if one takes it as a permenant position pending empirical evidence, since there is never going to be any empiracal evidence as you have said; and then you have to justify why it is more reasonable to settled for atheism or theism.

In the absence of evidence either way, why make that leap of faith?

If there is a possiblity of a God, isnt it more reasonable to base a belief on the most reasonable “possiblity” that best reflects the reality we are in?

Are you playing Pascal here? No, it isn’t reasonable. None of the ‘possibilities’ reflect what I see very well. And once again, in the absence of logical proof or empirical evidence, reason is either going to stay out or give way entirely to faith.

Its better to say that your an atheist that is agnostic about your position, or a theist that is agnostic about being a theist. In otherwords its about doubt.

Doubt? I’m quite sure the question of divine existence is impossible to answer.

 

[estesbob]

agnosticism is just a pompous title for indecision and confusion
it is no more an intellectual position than not being able to choose between sugar puffs and shredded wheat
a position that actually states nothing is obviously very defensible

Best description I ever heard of an agnostic is one who “swears there aint no heaven and prays there aint no hell”

Most agnositcs I know are really atheists afraid to admit it,

 

[freesoulhope]

In the absence of evidence either way, why make that leap of faith?

Your taken a leap of faith by not believing, since you would have to believe that you are not missing out on something either way.
You haven choosen not to believe in God, because you do not believe that reasonable proof is acceptable.

There is absolutly no reasonable evidence on the side of atheism, except for maybe the argument about pain, but even then it does not follow that there is no God, because it is a qeustion of morality rather then existents; or the other hand, Theism has an abundence of reasonable proofs. This leap of faith you speak of, isn’t such a great leap if you ask me.

 

[Mirdath]

Your taken a leap of faith by not believing, since you would have to believe that you are not missing out on something either way.
You haven choosen not to believe in God, because you do not believe that reasonable proof is acceptable.

Incorrect: I make no such leap because I find myself incapable of believing either way. I do not disbelieve in God; rather I posit that that question is entirely unanswerable.

There is absolutly no reasonable evidence on the side of atheism, except for maybe the argument about pain, but even then it does not follow that there is no God, because it is a qeustion of morality rather then existents; or the other hand, Theism has an abundence of reasonable proofs.

I’ve seen a great many proofs of theism; none of them was in any way flawless or convincing. Same with opposing proofs (and there are just as many).

This leap of faith you speak of, isn’t such a great leap if you ask me.

Sure, it may not seem so great once you’ve made it – but that doesn’t make it any shorter a leap. I assure you, it’s pretty huge.

Christianity in particular requires one accept a great many things on faith: the simultaneous humanity and divinity of the Christ, the benevolence of God, transubstantiation (where applicable), the existence of an afterlife and judgment – for a few examples. None of those concepts is logically provable, and some are outright paradoxes. How can one believe such things are true except by letting go of logic and taking them on faith? It’s impossible. Making that leap is essential to religious belief: Kierkegaard was right.

 

[LapsedAtheist]

That’s only your perception of it. Of course I follow no organized religion – I couldn’t very well do that and claim to be agnostic, could I?

Not all religions require belief in a deity.

But it does not mean I’m basically atheist – I’m functionally irreligious. The possibility that there is a God or gods sounds just as reasonable to me as the possibility that there’s no such thing. I simply believe it’s impossible to know.

Personally, I consider myself an atheist in the literal “not theist” sense: I have a complete absence of belief in god, gods, or God.

While the fact that I’ve never seen anything to lead me to worship of a deity certainly makes me think that on the balance of probabilities, there is likely no overarching deity anything like the Christian God, I consider the label to come from that original definition; there’s a small but important distinction between “I have no belief in God” and “I believe in the absence of God”.

freesoulhope:

Since agnosticism compells one to be atheist,(atheism being the side that demands less responsiblity for ones actions or thoughts),

I disagree. The atheist has no unseen power to call on for help or to blame for misfortune; everything depends on onesself.

I saw an interview with Chris Gardner (the author of “The Pursuit of Happyness”) last week. The topic was different, but the quote is still apt. He said that one of the things his mother told him at an early age was, “the cavalry aren’t coming, son. You’re going to have to do it yourself.”

I’m not sure what else “responsibility for one’s actions or thoughts” could be than knowing that everything that matters to you depends on your personal will and action to do it.

 

[faelpsanfeel]

There was a time when I told people I was agnostic.

To me, it’s just a way to explain your spiritual dilemma. Also, you could be agnostic and be Buddhist, for example, so agnosticism doesn’t really prevent one from adopting the philosophical elements of a particular belief system. I realize that doesn’t work for Christianity, but I think it would probably work for many Eastern religions.

I guess I’m just trying to say that being agnostic is more an emotional state of mind than it is a religious belief.

 

[Mirdath]

To me, it’s just a way to explain your spiritual dilemma. Also, you could be agnostic and be Buddhist, for example, so agnosticism doesn’t really prevent one from adopting the philosophical elements of a particular belief system. I realize that doesn’t work for Christianity, but I think it would probably work for many Eastern religions.

That’s true; like LapsedAtheist said, there are non-theistic ‘religions’ such as Buddhism (some forms), Confucianism, and Taoism – these seem less of actual religions and more of ‘life philosophies’ if you will.

I guess I’m just trying to say that being agnostic is more an emotional state of mind than it is a religious belief.

Emotional? I’d say you’re right that it’s distinctly not a religious belief in that no capital-F Faith in something is involved, but it seems more predicated on philosophy and reason than on emotion.

 

[LapsedAtheist]

To me, it’s just a way to explain your spiritual dilemma. Also, you could be agnostic and be Buddhist, for example, so agnosticism doesn’t really prevent one from adopting the philosophical elements of a particular belief system.

Also, Unitarian Universalism incorporates all belief systems (or at least those that allow for diversity of belief), and some Quakers claim that belief in God isn’t necessary to be a Quaker… my impression is that most mainstream Quakers disagree, though.

I realize that doesn’t work for Christianity, but I think it would probably work for many Eastern religions.

To a certain extent, it does.

I’ve found that it isn’t necessary to believe that Jesus is divine to appreciate meaning in His words in the Gospels… however, I do realize that there’s much more to Christianity than just saying “you know, I think Jesus made a good point there.”.

 

[Bennie_P]

freesoulhope asked me this in another thread, but I felt it’d have a better home over here.

First, what is agnosticism? ‘Not knowing’, literally – that’s weak agnosticism. It’s kind of an intellectual sloth, at least on the subject of religion.

Strong agnosticism postulates that knowing is impossible. Not only don’t we know whether there is a deity or deities, we cannot know – it’s far beyond the limits of our perception. This is the position I subscribe to.

Philosophically, strong agnosticism is actually quite a defensible position – in fact, the most defensible (other than weak agnosticism, which generally wouldn’t bother to show up to the debate anyway) as it does not require Faith. Both theism and atheism are expressions of faith: one in the divine, the other in the lack of the divine. Neither side is able to prove itself right to the satisfaction of anyone else, because fundamentally they both require one to accept ‘God exists/does not exist’ as a statement of faith.

However, it’s quite easy to say ‘we cannot know whether the divine exists’: it’s unfalsifiable, because to make it untrue one has to accept that knowledge on faith. Certainly, there are many attempted logical proofs going in both directions – but I have yet to see one without at least one glaring flaw.

So that’s a start, at least – I’m not entirely sure if I answered the exact question freesoulhope asked. If not, or if anyone has other questions, fire away

I just wonder how one to claims to be agnostic, but make hundreds, if not thousands of post on a Catholic web site? I wonder how many that come here claiming to be agnostics, athiests and pagans are truly seekers struggling with the lies they want to hold on to, but something(or someone i.g. Holy Spirt) is pulling them in?
I know when I claimed to be an agnostic, the last place I wanted to be was debating my lack of belief in Christ with believers.

*Jesus answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. **No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me **draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. *
John 6:43 - 44

*But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him. **And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.*John 6:64 - 65

 

[freesoulhope]

That’s true; like LapsedAtheist said, there are non-theistic ‘religions’ such as Buddhism (some forms), Confucianism, and Taoism – these seem less of actual religions and more of ‘life philosophies’ if you will.

Emotional? I’d say you’re right that it’s distinctly not a religious belief in that no capital-F Faith in something is involved, but it seems more predicated on philosophy and reason than on emotion.

You never said that you are agnostic because of reason or philosophy; you said it is because there is a lack of scientific evidence. What you speak of, is more like some kind of scientific materialist principle, rather then a philosophy. Agnosticism is a scientific belief system.

It’s natural to want to know the truth, but to be agnostic, is to not want to know anything untill empirical evidence is present; of which you know there is none, therefore it is a fallacy to search for an answer through science, since science studies nature, and God is beyond nature. You correctwhen you say that there is no way a human being can know God, if your speaking about discovering him through emprical science; however you can know that there is God through logical deduction and reasoning, which is a lot like empirical science, but your dealing with human thoughts rather then physical objects.

Empirical reasoning can lead you to realise that…….

1. Atheism has no logical basis; you your self say that you do not believe atheism to have any evidence;
2. Atheism fails to express that it has any logical basis at all, as well as having no scientific evidence to back it up.
3. God has a very logical basis for reality, and is in fact, the only logical answer that can explain the existents of are reality; regardless of the lack of scientific evidence.
4. They may not be any evidence that points “directly” to God, but the evidence available through emprical natural science (especially when we know of D.N.A; how obvious can it get?), is certainly suggestive of God, and an underlying purpose driving nature, even though it is in a very indirect sense. In other words the world has the signature of God written all over it, even if the writer is not present.
5. Atheism, as a belief system, fails to explain the fundamental basis of are reality; why it acts as it does and produces what it produces; in other words, if it has no intelligence behind it, then why does it act as if it does? Atheism has know logical answer to this question, but God does.

To be agnostic, is to hide behind a tool that cannot prove the existents of God (not a philosophy) and neither is it designed to. Being agnostic doesn’t follow or prove that there is no other way of knowing that God exists.
The only reason I could think of for not wanting to put hope or belief in a higher dimension, a super nature, is because it goes against something that you want.

1. Inteligence: The idea that somebody would doubt the existents of a God, when out of the many possibilities of how the universe could have turned out with out intelligent restraint, that a rational mind, fully aware of its self, should occur, full stop, is mind boggling to me.

 

[Mirdath]

I just wonder how one to claims to be agnostic, but make hundreds, if not thousands of post on a Catholic web site? I wonder how many that come here claiming to be agnostics, athiests and pagans are truly seekers struggling with the lies they want to hold on to, but something(or someone i.g. Holy Spirt) is pulling them in?
I know when I claimed to be an agnostic, the last place I wanted to be was debating my lack of belief in Christ with believers.

Different people have different ideas of fun, I guess?

 

[LapsedAtheist]

I know when I claimed to be an agnostic, the last place I wanted to be was debating my lack of belief in Christ with believers.

I suppose it is easier to defend your position when you stay away from people who disagree with it. I think I’m secure enough in my beliefs to expose myself to dissenting views occasionally.

As for me, I’m here to try to better understand my wife’s religion.

Edit - so many posts at once!

1. They may not be any evidence that points “directly” to God, but the evidence available through emprical natural science (especially when we know of D.N.A; how obvious can it get?), is certainly suggestive of God, and an underlying purpose driving nature, even though it is in a very indirect sense. In other words the world has the signature of God written all over it, even if the writer is not present.

In the Miller-Urey experiment, they found that when they set up a sterile system only fed with water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen, heat and an electric spark, that after running the apparatus for a week, all sorts of organic compounds had occurred naturally… including DNA. Later experiments have shown similar results.