Positive Aspects of Agnosticism?

[Charlemagne_III]

" I certainly agree that if someone knows that their religion is true…" How does one know such a thing? Because of a book? Because of what they’ve been told? Because of what they feel?

In what respect does the agnostic have a right to advance agnosticism since he claims not to be certain of anything?

Shouldn’t he just shut up?

 

[Viki63]

"Now that I am a Christian, I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable; but when I was an atheist, I had moods in which Christianity looked terribly probable. " C.S.Lewis

.

 

[puzzledtoo]

Charlemagnelll: In response to your post #20–I believe it is in our nature as humans to want to share what we view as good news. So whether we are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, atheist, or agnostic we all want to share what we believe to be true.
I don’t believe anyone has to shut up for sharing a different viewpoint. On that note I’ll now shut up. Be well-stay safe.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

So what are you saying?

Are you saying it’s all right for people to have dogmas and opinions and assumptions but they should not assume these to be points for rational discussion?

It depends on how the dogma is used. The problem arises only when the dogma is presumed to be true and then used as a starting point for an argument, like when a materialist says that all things must be material and obey physical laws in order for it to be real or possible. Another problem is when the conclusion is already made, and then you argue or research things under that preconception which many times amounts to trying to force the facts to fit the conclusion rather than the other way around. Agnostics typically avoid dogmas or drawing any strong conclusions for these very reasons.

Agnosticism has many consequences, not least of them being the view that people should shut up about their convictions because they really know nothing.

Well you can talk about your convictions on a theoretical basis, but just don’t try to impose them on others in intellectual contexts unless you have more than just dogma.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

" I certainly agree that if someone knows that their religion is true…" How does one know such a thing? Because of a book? Because of what they’ve been told? Because of what they feel?

I’m waiting for an answer on that, as well. I don’t think it’s completely impossible just as long as the religion can be supported by empirical evidence and/or logic.

In what respect does the agnostic have a right to advance agnosticism since he claims not to be certain of anything?

Shouldn’t he just shut up?

Not all agnostics claim that we can’t be certain of anything. Strong agnostics might believe such. For weak agnostics, the uncertainty may be temporary until we can find evidence. Agnosticism, as Huxley intended it, is only against ‘dogmatism’. It does not take away from evidenced and/or logical claims.
…
Dogma: prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group:
a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle:

Dogmatism: dogmatic character; unfounded positiveness in matters of opinion; arrogant assertion of opinions as truths.
Source: Dictionary.com

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I’m sorry, but after giving this argument considerable thought, the only conclusion that I can possibly come to…is that it’s patently false. While it’s true that both the theist and the agnostic come into any discussion with certain preconceptions, it’s the nature of those preconceptions that dictate the open-mindedness of each position.

The theist comes into a discussion with the preconception that their overarching concept of what’s true, must be right. Therefore the odds of anything which doesn’t conform to that preconception being true, must always be zero. The theist may consider the opposing arguments, but they’re forced from the outset to conclude that anything that contradicts their preconceptions, must be wrong. They have no choice. They are by definition, close-minded.

The agnostic on the other hand, comes into a discussion with the preconception that anything that can’t be proven to be true, can’t be assumed to be true. And alternately, that anything that can’t be proven to be false, can’t be assumed to be false. Therefore the odds of anything being true or false, which can’t be proven to be true or false, are never zero. The agnostic may strongly disagree with arguments that can’t be proven or disproven, but they can never completely dismiss them. Like the theist, the true agnostic has no choice. They are by definition, open-minded.

So although theists may disagree, theism and agnosticism aren’t merely two perspectives on the same thing…open-mindedness. They’re actually opposite extremes of the same thing, one never doubting what it assumes to be true, and the other always doing so.

Now, with all that being said, is the theist ever completely close-minded, and is the agnostic ever completely open-minded? Probably not. The question is, would the world really be a better place, if we had one without the other? Or is the world better off, for having them both?

Well said!!

Nothing has changed since the 19th century, the time of which Huxley coined the word ‘agnostic’. Since his time and before then, many Christians and atheists have engaged in black-and-white thinking (thinking within their preconceived paradigms) when there are a lot of gray areas or unknowns. You asked, “The question is, would the world really be a better place, if we had one [agnostics and theists] without the other?” No it would not be a better place because the agnostics can and need to expose these gray areas that tends to be covered up and explained away with dogma. The nature of consciousness, the origins of the Universe, life on Earth, etc. are all great mysteries.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Another problem is when the conclusion is already made, and then you argue or research things under that preconception which many times amounts to trying to force the facts to fit the conclusion rather than the other way around. Agnostics typically avoid dogmas or drawing any strong conclusions for these very reasons.

Dogmas, such as those proposed by the Church, do not come from us. They come from God. We do not doubt them for that reason. When we, as you say, try to force the facts to fit the conclusion (I see you have been reading Bertrand Russell’s critique of Thomas Aquinas), we are only doing so because we know the facts will fit the conclusion that God has revealed to us. Even Einstein could reason his way to an intelligent God by observing the vastly complex laws of the universe that could not be possible without a law Designer behind them.

The agnostic has no revelation outside his own insight. His own conclusion is that nothing is really ultimately knowable, so he fits the facts to justify that conclusion. For example, it is a fact that lots of people disagree about lots of things. From that fact many agnostics will conclude that nothing is certain. What is certain is that this so-called fact is not even a fact. Lots of people can disagree about lots of things, but that does not mean that not one of those people has real and palpable possession of the truth.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not all agnostics claim that we can’t be certain of anything. Strong agnostics might believe such. For weak agnostics, the uncertainty may be temporary until we can find evidence. Agnosticism, as Huxley intended it, is only against ‘dogmatism’. It does not take away from evidenced and/or logical claims.
…
Dogma: prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group:
a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle:

Dogmatism: dogmatic character; unfounded positiveness in matters of opinion; arrogant assertion of opinions as truths.
Source: Dictionary.com

I have never seen anyone more “arrogant” and “dogmatic” about the theory of evolution than Richard Dawkins.

 

[LexDivina]

Agnostic atheism is a very common position. “Agnostic” by itself doesn’t tell you much - it just says we don’t know. The interesting thing is “agnostic what”. Agnostic is not a middle ground between the two (theism / atheism). It is an orthogonal statement. There is also the lesser used term ‘Ignostic’ which is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term “god” has no unambiguous definition.

Most Agnostic’s I’ve met and known have been very humble people. Agnostics may be theist, atheist, or undecided. One of the distinct advantages is that you don’t have to take a side in any debate between the other two. It also allows for more honest and understanding investigation. It is often the case that some theists and atheists become dogmatic and ignore evidence or arguments for the other side.

The entire point in Agnosticism is that There is nothing to conclusively prove that theism is false, and so those that hold that position acknowledge that the possibility of theism is true, but that it simply requires further evidence. What this evidence is, is entirely up to the Agnostic. I’ve seen Agnostic’s witness what they considered miracles and turn to theism. So I’d say open mindedness is a big advantage.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’ve seen Agnostic’s witness what they considered miracles and turn to theism. So I’d say open mindedness is a big advantage.

IT IS AS LIKELY THAT AN AGNOSTIC WOULD DOUBT HIS OWN SENSES.

IN WHICH CASE HE IS STILL CLOSE-MINDED AND AT A DISADVANTAGE.

 

[Vonsalza]

Many Christians think that becoming agnostic towards Christianity is a bad thing. As a result, Christians parents and spouses try to get their loved ones to drop their agnosticism so that they can fully accept Christianity. I think that this is a bad approach that may stem from these Christians not knowing the positives of agnosticism. I believe that Christian parents and spouses would do better to add Christianity as a compliment to agnosticism rather than trying to get their loved ones to reject it.

Discussion:

1. Is it a sin to be an agnostic Christian?
2. What are some of the positives of agnosticism?

I’ll break the ice in post #2.

Hey!

I’ll start by saying that I admire the rational thinking and intellectual honesty of the authentically agnostic. Most who claim the title are actual atheists that wish to cloak themselves with the rational superiority of Agnosticism. So I tip my cap :tiphat:

From what I imagine as the agnostic position, the “sin” is the perpetual self-exclusion from membership in greater groups that provide meaning for your life. While the metaphysical is-and-always-will-be completely unproveable in any empirical sense, that doesn’t necessarily mean that religious ideas lack some unambiguous merit.

For my best example, I get my concept of “right and wrong” from my faith, as we can probably agree that those ideas are purely metaphysical conjecture. The closest we get to those ideas in other species is “normative behavior” like we see with dolphins and apes. As a result, my concept of “right and wrong” mashes reasonably well with those of Abrahamic persuasion as well. Thus I can start to establish a sense of “tribe” with those people. And in order to further strengthen my desire for tribal membership, I concede to Western Christianity (specifically Catholicism) as that religious view is clearly the source of the moral code for the majority of the western society in which I live.

To be sure - when I see an atheist like Penn Jillett (sp?) object to religious morality with a quip such as “I DON’T NEED GOD TO KNOW GENOCIDE IS WRONG”, I am certain that his belief is simply the residue of the western society he grew up in as well (which was founded with Christianity as it’s moral source). If you were to press him on “why” genocide is wrong, his answer would necessitate an appeal to some sort of abstraction similar to the concept of “god” - which is also subject to the same critiques that Penn uses to debunk “god”.

Sure, he might spout something about the “golden rule”, but upon the lightest of analysis, the “GR” is merely a call to consistency. If you think poor people deserve to starve, then when you starve you must refuse offerings of food And as long as you’ll abide by that, the GR can be safely used to let poor people starve to death.

Really, the only morality that nature unambiguously gives us is “right of might”. As a tiger, if I’m hungry and I’m capable of hunting and killing you, then you should be my next meal. And you should be “ok” with that. After all, if a tiger can’t kill, it can’t eat and will die.

In sum, consider Christianity because it’s the source for the moral fabric of the world you live in - if you’re a westerner. If you lived in Japan, the rationalist in me would strongly suggest Shinto. In that way, a Japanese man can be more fully Japanese and a westerner can be more fully western and thus derive more meaning and satisfaction from their lives as those beliefs allow them to more fully interact with the fellow members of their society.

As to the positives of agnosticism? I think I provided in the top of my post.

And a note to the hardcore Catholics who will blast me for this post - I’m trying to meet him where he is. Not where I am. Chill out.

 

[LexDivina]

IT IS AS LIKELY THAT AN AGNOSTIC WOULD DOUBT HIS OWN SENSES.

IN WHICH CASE HE IS STILL CLOSE-MINDED AND AT A DISADVANTAGE.

Actually, I’ve met plenty of agnostic’s and atheist’s who have witnessed miracles and turned catholic. Even something as simple as the miracle of life and giving birth has made them change. I myself was agnostic before discerning to become a catholic. Please do not speak for other people.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Hi!

…the problem with your premise is that for a person to be a true agnostic he/she must reject everything that Yahweh God has Revealed through the Oral and Written Traditions… this, in effect, means that the all of Sacred Scriptures, the Church, and everything in nature that points to God must be viewed in the awesome realm of “can’t be known.”

I forgot to make it known from the start that I am a ‘weak’ agnostic. The difference between weak agnostics and strong agnostics is that the latter would assert that God is unknowable, while weak agnostics would only assert that God is currently unknown (not enough facts/evidence is in to make a decision). As a weak agnostic, I am still searching so it’s not as if I’m not interested in being convinced. I’ve read and listened to many arguments from both sides (atheism and theism) and I am still not convinced either way, yet.

…an agnostic Christian is an oxymoron!

…a relationship between these two (agnostic and Christian) is as fruitful as a snowflake in hell!

…that being said, both can coexist, though not romantically, the world since Christians are Called to Love and agnostics, to my understanding, claim to be searching for truth.

Maran atha!

Angel

I appreciate your explanation here. It makes sense that it can be difficult for a Christianity and agnosticism to coexist one system depending on what Christianity requires.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Agnostic atheism is a very common position. “Agnostic” by itself doesn’t tell you much - it just says we don’t know. The interesting thing is “agnostic what”. Agnostic is not a middle ground between the two (theism / atheism). It is an orthogonal statement. There is also the lesser used term ‘Ignostic’ which is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term “god” has no unambiguous definition.

Most Agnostic’s I’ve met and known have been very humble people. Agnostics may be theist, atheist, or undecided. One of the distinct advantages is that you don’t have to take a side in any debate between the other two. It also allows for more honest and understanding investigation. It is often the case that some theists and atheists become dogmatic and ignore evidence or arguments for the other side.

The entire point in Agnosticism is that There is nothing to conclusively prove that theism is false, and so those that hold that position acknowledge that the possibility of theism is true, but that it simply requires further evidence. What this evidence is, is entirely up to the Agnostic. I’ve seen Agnostic’s witness what they considered miracles and turn to theism. So I’d say open mindedness is a big advantage.

Very good points! I think the “undecided” label that you brought up is important to expand on. Interestingly, the problem that I’ve had in being undecided is that many try to label me based on my views but the problem is that I have adopted views from both sides, ie theism and atheism. The ones who are so adamant about labelling agnostics as being one way or another tend to get upset if I support some of the viewpoints from the side that they didn’t label me as. This is why I’ve found it helpful to call myself an ‘independent’ or undecided.

I suppose the divide between Christians and atheists is like American partisan politics. To be a good Democrat, you have to agree with every position on their platform, e.g. LGBTQIA equality, social welfare programs, etc., otherwise you’re probably an undercover Republican or conservative. I know some people who don’t associate with either political party because of the polarization between the parties, so I’m sure some agnostics may be agnostic because of the polarization between the worldviews.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Hey!
I’ll start by saying that I admire the rational thinking and intellectual honesty of the authentically agnostic. Most who claim the title are actual atheists that wish to cloak themselves with the rational superiority of Agnosticism. So I tip my cap :tiphat:

Wise observation! I believe there are other bad variety of agnostics like the lazy/apathetic ones (fence-sitters?). I believe that if you’re an undecided agnostic, you should be looking for answers rather than just giving up. In other words, arriving at the destination regarding God’s existence or continually searching is much better than doing nothing. Even atheists and theists should continue searching and questioning.

From what I imagine as the agnostic position, the “sin” is the perpetual self-exclusion from membership in greater groups that provide meaning for your life. While the metaphysical is-and-always-will-be completely unproveable in any empirical sense, that doesn’t necessarily mean that religious ideas lack some unambiguous merit.

For my best example, I get my concept of “right and wrong” from my faith, as we can probably agree that those ideas are purely metaphysical conjecture. The closest we get to those ideas in other species is “normative behavior” like we see with dolphins and apes. As a result, my concept of “right and wrong” mashes reasonably well with those of Abrahamic persuasion as well. Thus I can start to establish a sense of “tribe” with those people. And in order to further strengthen my desire for tribal membership, I concede to Western Christianity (specifically Catholicism) as that religious view is clearly the source of the moral code for the majority of the western society in which I live.

To be sure - when I see an atheist like Penn Jillett (sp?) object to religious morality with a quip such as “I DON’T NEED GOD TO KNOW GENOCIDE IS WRONG”, I am certain that his belief is simply the residue of the western society he grew up in as well (which was founded with Christianity as it’s moral source). If you were to press him on “why” genocide is wrong, his answer would necessitate an appeal to some sort of abstraction similar to the concept of “god” - which is also subject to the same critiques that Penn uses to debunk “god”.

Sure, he might spout something about the “golden rule”, but upon the lightest of analysis, the “GR” is merely a call to consistency. If you think poor people deserve to starve, then when you starve you must refuse offerings of food And as long as you’ll abide by that, the GR can be safely used to let poor people starve to death.

Really, the only morality that nature unambiguously gives us is “right of might”. As a tiger, if I’m hungry and I’m capable of hunting and killing you, then you should be my next meal. And you should be “ok” with that. After all, if a tiger can’t kill, it can’t eat and will die.

In sum, consider Christianity because it’s the source for the moral fabric of the world you live in - if you’re a westerner. If you lived in Japan, the rationalist in me would strongly suggest Shinto. In that way, a Japanese man can be more fully Japanese and a westerner can be more fully western and thus derive more meaning and satisfaction from their lives as those beliefs allow them to more fully interact with the fellow members of their society.

As to the positives of agnosticism? I think I provided in the top of my post.

And a note to the hardcore Catholics who will blast me for this post - I’m trying to meet him where he is. Not where I am. Chill out.

I also don’t believe that atheists or naturalists have an objective foundation to base their morality on. Even with Western civilization valuing morality as being objective (even if not justified) we still have a problem when it comes to following the rules (corruption, wars, sexual depravity, etc) so I could not imagine how a society would fare when there’s not the same regard for morality in addition to the problem of not consistently following them.

 

[Vonsalza]

Wise observation! I believe there are other bad variety of agnostics like the lazy/apathetic ones (fence-sitters?). I believe that if you’re an undecided agnostic, you should be looking for answers rather than just giving up. In other words, arriving at the destination regarding God’s existence or continually searching is much better than doing nothing. Even atheists and theists should continue searching and questioning.

I also don’t believe that atheists or naturalists have an objective foundation to base their morality on. Even with Western civilization valuing morality as being objective (even if not justified) we still have a problem when it comes to following the rules (corruption, wars, sexual depravity, etc) so I could not imagine how a society would fare when there’s not the same regard for morality in addition to the problem of not consistently following them.

I don’t think atheists have an objective moral foundation either, even as they generally seem to want one. After all, openly subjective morality fails to satisfy the “mission” of morality itself - to create a set or norms that are transcendent: a set of rules we can “hang our hat on” and know that “good and bad” are real.

I wouldn’t consider the existence of bad behavior (corruption, wars, sexual depravity, etc) as proof that objective morality doesn’t exist. Those are the products of “free will” acting in contra to known moral behavior. Their “badness” may even be evidenced by your ability to point them out as “bad”.

A society fares in this state by creating a justice system. And where that justice system occasionally fails (as all complex systems do), the Christian society benefits from the idea of having a “Divine Cop” that gets the bad-boys in the end.

Even if that’s not factually true, it creates a workable peace within society. Without it, there would be an immoral arms-race where people very reasonably think “Well, if HE benefits from disobeying the rules then screw it! I’m not following the rules either.” Thus enters the anarchy of absolute egoism. The Right of Might enters the land!

The great boon of religion isn’t objective fact. It’s metaphysical meaning. And people undeniably crave it. Which is why atheism will never fully solidify as a real global “religion”. If your rules don’t come from a god, then they must come from the state. The 20th century showed us how that worked out. The “State-Atheism” of the 20th century racked up a higher body count than all the purely religious wars of history combined.

Nietzsche predicted this 70-some-odd years before it happened, interestingly.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Actually, I’ve met plenty of agnostic’s and atheist’s who have witnessed miracles and turned catholic. Even something as simple as the miracle of life and giving birth has made them change. I myself was agnostic before discerning to become a catholic. Please do not speak for other people.

Perhaps you should not be speaking for other people. Let the former atheists who converted through a miracle speak for themselves, if you can find one willing to do so.

I have never known one, and I have never known an atheist who consider birth a miracle in the biblical sense.

 

[EnosJadon]

I’m sorry that I don’t have time to be more involved in this discussion, but I just wanted to give a couple of to Vonsalza and AgnosticBoy.

You two are doing a much better job of articulating my thoughts than I ever could. There are a few points where we might differ somewhat, but well reasoned arguments none-the-less.

 

[Vonsalza]

Thanks for the kudos. AgnosticBoy is a sharp fella. And intellectually honest, which is super rare.

Where we differ is where the fun is!

Jump in!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The great boon of religion isn’t objective fact. It’s metaphysical meaning. And people undeniably crave it. Which is why atheism will never fully solidify as a real global “religion”. If your rules don’t come from a god, then they must come from the state. The 20th century showed us how that worked out. The “State-Atheism” of the 20th century racked up a higher body count than all the purely religious wars of history combined.

Nietzsche predicted this 70-some-odd years before it happened, interestingly.

No atheist or agnostic I’ve read has ever offered a moral compass that works without God.
I’m not advocating just a pragmatic approach to morals. If the point of morality is that it renders righteousness, and that cannot be effectively rendered without God, righteousness will never be anything but the preference of the dictator with the biggest stick.

That is why the atheist state of North Korea is not only not righteous; it is insane.