Positive Aspects of Agnosticism?

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Background on my agnosticism:
I am an independent agnostic in that I don’t find that I fit in with the atheistic and theistic positions. My beliefs are all over the place and are not as simple as declaring, “yes” or “no” in regards to God’s existence. There can be reasons behind a belief. When I breakdown some of my beliefs, I tend to find that some of the reasons behind them lead to God existing and others lead to God not existing so I’m not sure what I really believe. These are conflicting beliefs and to be an atheist or theist, you must believe in one or the other and not both to a degree.

With that said, here are the positives:

• Agnosticism is not tied to dogmas such as naturalism and Christian beliefs unlike atheism and Christianity, respectively. The rest of the positives will stem from this fact.
• agnostics are more apt to think outside of the box (outside of dogmas).
• agnostics are more apt to find middle ground conclusions since they’re not trying to win for a particular side.
• agnostics are more open-minded since their search are not restricted by preconceived dogma.
• agnostics are more apt to not mistake beliefs (dogmas) with knowledge or certainty.

These are just some positives that I’ve gathered from experiences of mine and others when one is not bogged down by the dogmas of any belief-system.

 

[EnosJadon]

These are just some positives that I’ve gathered from experiences of mine and others when one is not bogged down by the dogmas of any belief-system.

Ah, but one must be very careful that one isn’t simply substituting one set of dogmas for another, without ever being aware of it.

Agnosticism, rightly exercised, applies to more than just God.

 

[Viki63]

I used to be an agnostic. I believe it just means that you don’t know whether God exists or not, which is a much more rational opinion than atheism. No one can prove atheism.

However, after several experiences and some study, I firmly believe in the existence and the love of God. I think anyone who sincerely looks for the truth will find it.

If you are looking for the truth, I recommend Robert Spitzer’s book, New Proofs for the Existence of God.
There is really incontrovertible proof of God’s existence.
But you can’t be both an agnostic and a Christian at the same time. I wish you success in your journey.

.

 

[EnosJadon]

I think anyone who sincerely looks for the truth will find it.

Of course they’ll find it, because the truth is subjective. You can’t help but find it. Even if that truth is the belief that you can’t find the truth.

The only way to really find the truth is to reject the one that you’ve already found, and begin your search again, but this time without preconceptions. Unfortunately, for most people, they’re far too attached to their preconceptions to ever be persuaded to let them go. It’s easier to convince oneself of a lie, than it is to force oneself to face the truth.

Agnostics at least have the virtue of being honest enough to admit that they don’t know.

 

[inocente]

Discussion:

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

1. No, imho always follow your own conscience. It’s always a sin to pretend to have faith in something when you don’t, for then you’re being dishonest to yourself. As Paul says, “whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin” - Romans 14.
2. Once we’re certain of something, our minds are closed. “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.” - Richard Feynman

But of course, on the other hand don’t prevaricate, especially to yourself.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

• Agnosticism is not tied to dogmas such as naturalism and Christian beliefs unlike atheism and Christianity, respectively. The rest of the positives will stem from this fact.
• agnostics are more apt to think outside of the box (outside of dogmas).
• agnostics are more apt to find middle ground conclusions since they’re not trying to win for a particular side.
• agnostics are more open-minded since their search are not restricted by preconceived dogma.
• agnostics are more apt to not mistake beliefs (dogmas) with knowledge or certainty.

These are just some positives that I’ve gathered from experiences of mine and others when one is not bogged down by the dogmas of any belief-system.

I think it’s unwise to assume that when people are convinced of the truth they must be “bogged down” in a belief system. The truth does not bog down people. It frees them from being bogged down in lies and self-deception … and being bogged down in agnosticism, for example.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

If you are looking for the truth, I recommend Robert Spitzer’s book, New Proofs for the Existence of God.
There is really incontrovertible proof of God’s existence.
But you can’t be both an agnostic and a Christian at the same time. I wish you success in your journey.

Thanks for the book reference. I looked it up on Amazon.com, and I’ll add it to my reading list.

Of course they’ll find it, because the truth is subjective. You can’t help but find it. Even if that truth is the belief that you can’t find the truth.

The only way to really find the truth is to reject the one that you’ve already found, and begin your search again, but this time without preconceptions. Unfortunately, for most people, they’re far too attached to their preconceptions to ever be persuaded to let them go. It’s easier to convince oneself of a lie, than it is to force oneself to face the truth.

Agnostics at least have the virtue of being honest enough to admit that they don’t know.

Good insight, especially in the last sentence. At the surface, being an agnostic is very simple if all you have to do is just sit on the fence and say, “I don’t know”. However, the whole point of ‘agnosticism’, at least according Huxley who coined the word, is to expose the fact that many people have an inability to keep belief (dogma) and ‘certainty’ separate. This is especially true when groups and organizations are involved. This inability increases the potential for bias and close-mindedness where you have people/groups not being open to facts that go against their preconceived views or they force it to fit their with their worldview. Agnosticism just keeps you conscious of this fact so that you can avoid this pitfall.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

This quote from Huxley goes with my previous post regarding why ‘agnostic’ was coined.

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain “gnosis,”–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion.
…
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of “agnostic.” It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the “gnostic” of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant

Source: aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn.html

Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word “Agnostic” to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox [atheists], dogmatise with the utmost confidence

…

1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

1. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the “bosh” of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy [atheists] professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.

Source: aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/UnColl/Rdetc/AgnAnn.html

 

[jcrichton]

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.

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.”

…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

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I think it’s unwise to assume that when people are convinced of the truth they must be “bogged down” in a belief system. The truth does not bog down people. It frees them from being bogged down in lies and self-deception … and being bogged down in agnosticism, for example.

I accept that a belief system can be true, and that the believers should not remain uncertain in matters that they know to be true.

 

[jcrichton]

Of course they’ll find it, because the truth is subjective. You can’t help but find it. Even if that truth is the belief that you can’t find the truth.

The only way to really find the truth is to reject the one that you’ve already found, and begin your search again, but this time without preconceptions. Unfortunately, for most people, they’re far too attached to their preconceptions to ever be persuaded to let them go. It’s easier to convince oneself of a lie, than it is to force oneself to face the truth.

Agnostics at least have the virtue of being honest enough to admit that they don’t know.

Hi!

…if you look outside your window, in the morning (unless it is raining or some sort of storm is taking place) you will witness that there is sunlight–warm and illuminating… though you are not a plant, your body, as well as your mind (no not your physical brain), needs the sun light…

…you could well argue that “the sun” is not “known,” since there has never been a record of a human being stepping on its surface…

…then there’s the human composition… a mess of bones and flesh… yet, science has determine that humans are mostly liquid… then there are those atomical and subatomical particles (mostly empty space)… so do you know how it is that as solid as a human body seems it is mostly liquid and space? …what about a block of concrete… yep, bunch of wholes in it… yet, just try walking/running through it!

It is true that there are things that we cannot comprehend… and that there are things that we still don’t know about the earth, and the universe… does that mean that the earth and the universe do not exist?

Agnostic are better than atheist and fanatics in that they do not reject the existence of God–they are as bad as the others in that they hold on to their preconceptions regardless of the facts that surround them that, unequivocally, Reveal the Existence of God.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[skeptical_dan]

The word “agnostic” is often used in a rather vague way, but I find myself in a similar boat as OP in relation to the word.

I see it as the default position when dealing with any philosophical issue- Huxley’s point was that he couldn’t side with anyone on the question of God’s existence.

On the internet today, it is often used with theism and atheism to connote a degree of uncertainty about the issue, but this is rather unhelpful as it turns agnosticism from a “method” into a vague descriptor word.

Huxley:
“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.”

Also see: onenesspentecostal.com/agnostic.htm

My agnosticism is also separate from the kind of radical skepticism which the above article discusses, because that is also a kind of dogma. I hope that my agnosticism is short lived, as it is just a placeholder term until I can come to a belief in a metaphysical theory.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I think it’s unwise to assume that when people are convinced of the truth they must be “bogged down” in a belief system. The truth does not bog down people. It frees them from being bogged down in lies and self-deception … and being bogged down in agnosticism, for example.

I certainly agree that if someone knows that their religion is true, then that person should accept it as such. The problem arises when people only have beliefs (dogma), opinions, assumptions, and then try to pass those off as being knowledge or set it as the defining point for rational discussion. This is common practice amongst many Christians and atheists.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The word “agnostic” is often used in a rather vague way, but I find myself in a similar boat as OP in relation to the word.

I see it as the default position when dealing with any philosophical issue- Huxley’s point was that he couldn’t side with anyone on the question of God’s existence.

On the internet today, it is often used with theism and atheism to connote a degree of uncertainty about the issue, but this is rather unhelpful as it turns agnosticism from a “method” into a vague descriptor word.

Huxley:
“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.”

Also see: onenesspentecostal.com/agnostic.htm

My agnosticism is also separate from the kind of radical skepticism which the above article discusses, because that is also a kind of dogma. I hope that my agnosticism is short lived, as it is just a placeholder term until I can come to a belief in a metaphysical theory.

Thanks for posting that article as it was a good read. In my years of dialogue with Christians and atheists, the fundamental problem is that many don’t question their own belief/ preconceived views. They use these views as starting points in their arguments or as a defining line for what’s possible. I think this looks worse on atheists since they claim to be guided by skepticism and reason. When debating atheists on the historical Jesus, I couldn’t believe how many supposed ‘facts’ that atheists were willing to make up to avoid accepting the historical man just because there were supernatural stories about him. So many of their arguments just screams materialism/metaphysical naturalism (unproven assumptions/dogma). When debating Christians, I could not believe how many hoops many were willing to jump through to defend all of the moral objections to their religion.

FYI, I’m not claiming that all atheists or Christians fit into the description above but so many do and unfortunately these types are the majority or they leave a stronger impression.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I certainly agree that if someone knows that their religion is true, then that person should accept it as such. The problem arises when people only have beliefs (dogma), opinions, assumptions, and then try to pass those off as being knowledge or set it as the defining point for rational discussion. This is common practice amongst many Christians and atheists.

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?

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

 

[EnosJadon]

I think it’s unwise to assume that when people are convinced of the truth they must be “bogged down” in a belief system. The truth does not bog down people. It frees them from being bogged down in lies and self-deception … and being bogged down in agnosticism, for example.

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?

 

[puzzledtoo]

" 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?

 

[jcrichton]

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?

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

Hi!

…wait, are you intimating that agnosticism is the ultimate totalitarianism minus the state–'my rules, my views, the rest must follow?’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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?

It’s not a question of whether the world would be a better place, but a question of whether any individual is better off being a theist or an agnostic. Naturally, the agnostic must think he is better off. What I’d like you to answer for me (you do not claim to be agnostic as to what you are talking about) is why the agnostic could actually be better off than the theist when the agnostic doesn’t even claim to **know **whether he is better off since he doesn’t even claim to know whether there is or is not a God.