OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 03:01:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: An Agnostic Manifesto  (Read 1204 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dnarmist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


Seems Uncertain


« on: January 15, 2011, 04:49:35 AM »

So this over at Slate, thought it was interesting to post:

Let's get one thing straight: Agnosticism is not some kind of weak-tea atheism. Agnosticism is not atheism or theism. It is radical skepticism, doubt in the possibility of certainty, opposition to the unwarranted certainties that atheism and theism offer.

Agnostics have mostly been depicted as doubters of religious belief, but recently, with the rise of the "New Atheism"—the high-profile denunciations of religion in best-sellers from scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, and polemicists, such as my colleague Christopher Hitchens—I believe it's important to define a distinct identity for agnosticism, to hold it apart from the certitudes of both theism and atheism.

I would not go so far as to argue that there's a "new agnosticism" on the rise. But I think it's time for a new agnosticism, one that takes on the New Atheists. Indeed agnostics see atheism as "a theism"—as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety.

Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence. (And some of them can behave as intolerantly to heretics who deviate from their unproven orthodoxy as the most unbending religious Inquisitor.)

Faced with the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing. But the question presents a fundamental mystery that has bedeviled (so to speak) philosophers and theologians from Aristotle to Aquinas. Recently scientists have tried to answer it with theories of "multiverses" and "vacuums filled with quantum potentialities," none of which strikes me as persuasive. (For a review of the centrality, and insolubility so far, of the something-from-nothing question, I recommend this podcast interview with Jim Holt, who is writing a book on the subject.)

Having recently spent two weeks in Cambridge (the one in the United Kingdom) on a Templeton-Cambridge Fellowship, being lectured to by believers and nonbelievers, I found myself feeling more than anything unconvinced by certainties on either side. And feeling the need for solidarity and identity with other doubters. Thus my call for a revivified agnosticism. Our T-shirt will read: I just don't know. (I should probably say here that I still consider myself Jewish in everything but the believing in God part, which, I'll admit, others may take exception to.)

Let me make clear that I accept most of the New Atheist's criticism of religious bad behavior over the centuries, and of theology itself. I just don't accept turning science into a new religion until it can show it has all the answers, which it hasn't, and probably never will.

Atheists have no evidence—and certainly no proof!—that science will ever solve the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Just because other difficult-seeming problems have been solved does not mean all difficult problems will always be solved. And so atheists really exist on the same superstitious plane as Thomas Aquinas, who tried to prove by logic the possibility of creation "ex nihilo" (from nothing). His eventual explanation entailed a Supreme Being standing outside of time and space somehow endowing it with existence (and interfering once in a while) without explaining what caused this source of "uncaused causation" to be created in the first place.

This is—or should be—grade-school stuff, but many of the New Atheists seemed to have stopped thinking since their early grade-school science-fair triumphs. I'm thinking in particular here of the ones who like to call themselves "the brights." (Or have they given up on that comically unfortunate term?) The "brights" seem like rather dim bulbs when it comes to this question. It's amazing how the New Atheists boastfully stride over this pons asinorum as if it weren't there.

You know about the pons asinorum, right? The so-called "bridge of asses" described by medieval scholars? Initially it referred to Euclid's Fifth Theorem, the one in which geometry really gets difficult and the sheep are separated from the asses among students, and the asses can't get across the bridge at all. Since then the phrase has been applied to any difficult theorem that the asses can't comprehend. And when it comes to the question of why is there something rather than nothing, the "New Atheists" still can't get their asses over the bridge, although many of them are too ignorant to realize that. This sort of ignorance, a condition called "anosognosia," which my friend Errol Morris is exploring in depth on his New York Times blog, means you don't know what you don't know. Or you don't know how stupid you are.

In fact, I challenge any atheist, New or old, to send me their answer to the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I can't wait for the evasions to pour forth. Or even the evidence that this question ever could be answered by science and logic.

Alas, agnostics still suffer from association with atheists by theists, and with theists by atheists. So let us be more precise about what agnostics are and aren't. They aren't disguised creationists. In fact, the term agnostic was coined in 1869 by one of Darwin's most fervent followers, Thomas Henry Huxley, famously known as "Darwin's bulldog" for his defense of evolutionary theory. Here's how he defined his agnosticism:

This principle may be stated in various ways but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.

Huxley originally defined his agnosticism against the claims of religion, but it also applies to the claims of science in its know-it-all mode. I should point out that I accept all that science has proven with evidence and falsifiable hypotheses but don't believe there is evidence or falsifiable certitude that science can prove or disprove everything. Agnosticism doesn't contend there are no certainties; it simply resists unwarranted untested or untestable certainties.

Agnosticism doesn't fear uncertainty. It doesn't cling like a child in the dark to the dogmas of orthodox religion or atheism. Agnosticism respects and celebrates uncertainty and has been doing so since before quantum physics revealed the uncertainty that lies at the very groundwork of being.

The circumstances in which I found the quotes from Huxley are worth noting since they point up the undeserving misapprehension of agnosticism as some subcomponent of atheism.

I came upon the Huxley essay in a book called The Agnostic Reader, a lone nod to agnosticism in an entire yardlong shelf of smug New Atheist polemics at a local Borders. The book's latest essay dates back to 1949. Time for an agnosticism revival, I say.

Why has agnosticism fallen out of favor? New Atheism offers the glamour of fraudulent rebelliousness, while agnosticism has only the less eye-catching attractions of humility. The willingness to say "I don't know" is less attention-getting than "I know, I know. I know it all."

Humility in the face of mystery has been a recurrent theme of mine. I wrote most recently about the problem of consciousness and found myself allied with the agnostic group of philosophers known as the Mysterians, who argue that we are epistemically, flat-out unable to know the nature of consciousness while being within consciousness. I'm reluctant to call agnostics Mysterians, much as I like the proto-punk ballad "96 Tears" by ? and the Mysterians. But I do like that agnosticism, which in fact can be more combative than its image, does have a sort of punk, disruptive, troublemaker side.

I was once called a "troublemaker" by no less than Terry Eagleton, once the wunderkind neo-Marxist post-modernist guru who ruined the minds of several generations of comp lit students and who has now turned into a promoter of a New Religiosity, with books such as Reason, Faith, and Revolution and On Evil.

We had an exchange over a dinner at the Harvard Club after he had given a talk there promoting his new religiosity, which seemed to me just a more mystified version of Aquinas' uncaused causation, the Supreme Being standing outside of time and space somehow bringing them into being. I asked him over dinner what it meant to stand outside time and space and how such a Supreme Being got there, and he sought refuge in evasive mysticism by asking loftily, "What is time?" To which I replied, "You go first."

"Troublemaker," he muttered to the woman sitting next to him. Yes, agnostics are troublemakers!

But I was troubled by the lack of intellectual ferment in the agnostic world. It's true the works of David Berlinski, most recently The Devil's Delusion, take on the new atheist science from an agnostic point of view. And recently there was a stir occasioned by Paul Kurtz, the much-admired former editor of the agnostic/atheist publication The Skeptical Inquirer who had taken to the pages of the secular humanist magazine Free Inquiry to attack the "true believer atheists," whom he called "true unbelievers" for behaving just like religious zealots:

We need to ask: are there fundamentalist "true unbelievers"? Many secular-atheists in twentieth-century totalitarian societies were indeed fundamentalists in the sense that they sought to impose a strict ideological code and willingly used state power and brutal violence against anyone who dissented. Stalinism is the best example of the readiness to punish deviation in the name of "the holy secular doctrine," which the commissars in the gulags used to enforce obedience. Fortunately, the extremes of this form of doctrinal terror have declined with the end of the cold war.

Nonetheless, there still lingers among some true unbelievers an unflinching conviction toward atheism—God does not exist, period; they are convinced of that! This kind of dogmatic attitude holds that this and only this is true and that anyone who deviates from it is a fool. This insults a great number of reflective believers.

John Dewey, the noted American philosopher, observed that "The aggressive atheist seems to have something in common with traditional superstition. … The exclusive preoccupation of both militant atheism and supernaturalism is with man in isolation from nature." [A Common Faith]

This argument that some atheists had become "true unbelievers" provoked a war of words (both online and in print) between atheists and agnostics that was valuable in distinguishing the two.

Then the writer John Farrell referred me to the agnosticism blog of John Wilkins, an Australian thinker, which introduced me to the fact there is an ongoing debate between the New Atheists and the Newer Agnostics.* When I e-mailed Wilkins about what the most important points of contention in these debates were, he sent me back this provocative five-point response, which I'll reprint below with my own annotations:

"For now my objections to the "New" Atheists (who are a vocal subset of the Old Atheists, and who I call Affirmative Atheists) are the same as my objections to organized religion:

1. Too much of the rhetoric and sociality is tribal: Us and Them."

So true. The verbal vitriol and vituperation that self-proclaimed New Atheists indulge in in the comments section of crusading atheist and Selfish Gene author Richard Dawkins' blog recently caused Dawkins himself, horrified by the not excessively "bright" mob he'd created, to shut down his comments section. (The concern was attacks on my fellow Templeton Cambridge fellow Chris Mooney who is a pro-science atheist but not an "incompatibilist," a nonsense term I don't have the patience to explain but for which they wanted his blood.)

2. [The New Atheism] presumes to know what it cannot. More on this below.

3. As a consequence of 1 and 2, it tries to co-opt Agnosticism as a form of "weak" Atheism. I think people have the right to self-identify as they choose, and I am neither an atheist nor a faith-booster, both charges having been made by atheists (sometimes the same atheists).

Cue James Brown chords: Say it loud! We're agnostic and proud!

4. Knowability: We are all atheist about some things: Christians are Vishnu-atheists, I am a Thor-atheist, and so on. [Which is why the "are you agnostic about fairies?" rejoinder is just dumb.] But it is a long step from making existence claims about one thing (fairies, Thor) to a general denial of the existence of all possible deities. I do not think the god of, say John Paul II exists. But I cannot speak to the God of Leibniz. No evidence decides that.

Fascinating. He dismisses Catholicism, but he won't deny outright the arguments of a philosophical believer such as Liebniz. I have been following with interest the argument of neo-Leibniz defenders of the existence of God, such as Alvin Plantinga, and his critics, such as John Hick.*

5. But does that mean no *possible* evidence could decide it [existence or nonexistence of God]? That's a much harder argument to make. Huxley thought it was in principle Unknowable, but that's a side effect of too much German Romanticism in his tea. I can conceive of logically possible states of affairs in which a God is knowable, and I can conceive of cases in which it is certain that no God exists.

Wilkins' suggestion is that there are really two claims agnosticism is concerned with is important: Whether God exists or not is one. Whether we can know the answer is another. Agnosticism is not for the simple-minded and is not as congenial as atheism and theism are.

The courage to admit we don't know and may never know what we don't know is more difficult than saying, sure, we know.

As Errol Morris put it in the conclusion of one his epic multipart New York Times examination of anosognosia—not knowing what we don't know:

We have "the desire but not the wherewithal to make sense of experience. One might easily forsee that this would lead to unending unmitigated frustration and suffering. But here's where self-deception [and] anosognosia ... step in. We wouldn't be able to make sense of anything, but we would never be aware of that fact."

Like I said, it's complicated. But the world has suffered enough from oversimplifications. The agnostic moment has come.

http://www.slate.com/id/2258484/
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,575



« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2011, 04:53:52 AM »

This article makes me embarrassed to call myself an agnostic.
Logged
Dnarmist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


Seems Uncertain


« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2011, 04:54:52 AM »

This article makes me embarrassed to call myself an agnostic.

Why?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,575



« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2011, 05:02:20 AM »

This article makes me embarrassed to call myself an agnostic.

Why?

I agree with a number of the points; my main problem is the tone. Some of the phrases that rubbed me the wrong way: “childlike faith,” “grade-school stuff,” “many of the New Atheists seemed to have stopped thinking since their early grade-school science-fair triumphs,” “The ‘brights‘ seem like rather dim bulbs when it comes to this question,” etc.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2011, 05:03:42 AM by Asteriktos » Logged
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Nelson
Posts: 1,217



« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2011, 08:36:14 AM »

I think I like where the author's going. I am currently reading "The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions" by agnostic author David Berlinski. New Atheism is becoming as ridiculous as the shallow religious fundamentalism it attempts to replace with Pure Science. I agree that agnosticism is being unnecessarily ousted from the discussion and agnostics labeled as people who are too timid or cowardly to make a stand - "atheism lite". I disagree with this whole-heartedly and think true agnosticism is the boldest and most honest stand to make. Good points in the article. Perhaps militant atheists are as afraid of mystery and uncertainty as the fundamentalists? Agnostics and Orthodox Christians both at least embrace uncertainty, in a sense. That is, they accept and live with mysteries.

I like the T-shirt logo idea he wrote of: I Just Don't Know. There is a famous Korean Zen master who used a very similar slogan in his teaching: Only Don't Know. The idea is that no one can really see things as they really are if they already think they know everything, or hold ideas and opinions about everything too tightly. Better to not know. Beginner's mind. Become like little children...

I like what Carl Sagan said when asked if he was atheist. To paraphrase, he answered: No, no. I'd have to know a lot more than I know now in order to call myself an atheist.  Sometimes it takes more balls (you know, courage) just to say "I don't know", and live with it. I think a lot of firm "believers and unbelievers" alike are agnostics deep down inside but just don't know it or won't admit it!

Done rambling.

Thanks for sharing the article.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2011, 08:41:17 AM by stavros_388 » Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,647



« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2011, 08:52:49 AM »

Perhaps militant atheists are as afraid of mystery and uncertainty as the fundamentalists? Agnostics and Orthodox Christians both at least embrace uncertainty, in a sense. That is, they accept and live with mysteries.

Spot on. This is why I don't find Atheism as a reasonable option. It could be rational if it admitted that it's only one option to interpret the World and that it's par with religions and Agnosticism. The problem is that often it doesn't admit that.
Logged
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Nelson
Posts: 1,217



« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2011, 02:44:06 PM »

Perhaps militant atheists are as afraid of mystery and uncertainty as the fundamentalists? Agnostics and Orthodox Christians both at least embrace uncertainty, in a sense. That is, they accept and live with mysteries.

Spot on. This is why I don't find Atheism as a reasonable option. It could be rational if it admitted that it's only one option to interpret the World and that it's par with religions and Agnosticism. The problem is that often it doesn't admit that.

Exactly. Some atheists, by proclaiming that there is no God in an absolute fashion, are kind of claiming to have omniscience... an attribute of God. Therefore, they claim the position of God by proclaiming to know there is no God. Or... something like that.  Undecided  Smiley
Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton
Dnarmist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


Seems Uncertain


« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2011, 03:03:57 PM »

Yes but these atheists could just defend that by saying they don't believe in any of the gods that all religions attest to (eventhough they are varied).
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,067


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2011, 08:44:47 PM »

I usually feel agnosticism is a short-lived crossroads to leaning one way or another.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,481



« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2011, 09:21:47 PM »

I usually feel agnosticism is a short-lived crossroads to leaning one way or another.
Somewhere or nowhere.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,575



« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2011, 09:41:53 PM »

I usually feel agnosticism is a short-lived crossroads to leaning one way or another.

Most famous agnostics I've read seemed to hold to their agnosticism to the end of their lives... Huxley, Stephen, etc. If you include skeptics into the mix (Carneades, Protagoras, etc.) the list is probably doubled, though it's obviously hard to say with the older ones who didn't leave us much to work with.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2011, 02:24:39 AM »

The more I read about what 'New Atheism' is, the more I dislike it. I, in fact, oppose the idea that science will definitively provide all answers and demonstrate (somehow) no Gods exist. I've done a bit of research into the subject lately and bow to certain criticisms thereof. I just wish more people knew a difference existed between Gnostic and Agnostic Atheism.

Again, this article wrongly assumes Atheists or Theists claim to know anything. I don't know if a God exists. I don't know how the universe precisely came to be. I don't know if there are other universes. I don't know if there is an after life. I would never claim any of these don't exist; some of them could be seen as unlikely. However we can only base such on what has been revealed to us by something that is divine and that is a matter of faith. Near as I have gathered from my studies, Agnosticism postulates a God or Gods as unknowable, which I also reject. I've always viewed Agnosticism as purely a philosophical standpoint. Less of an 'I don't know' and more of a 'We cannot know'. While it might be wrong of me to see it that way, it is otherwise indistinguishable from Atheism.

I'm not fond of the excerpt " . . . logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing." This is technically incorrect. Based on pre-Big Bang conditions, the universe (or, rather, a version of something definable as 'universe') was technically inevitable (based on the understanding I've read). While the science is still certainly not concrete, we do have a jaw-gapingly dazzling comprehension of what likely spurred the Big Bang, and it is most definitely not 'nothing'. In the colloquial sense, anyway. The singularity was definitely something, and, without properly synthesized atoms, it's fascinating to envision a body of hyper-condensed energy (intrinsic to 'nothing') that would fall into itself so extensively: an unfathomable chain-reaction would result, an 'explosion', which we are still a part of today. As for why that patch of alleged 'nothing' existed? I haven't the foggiest clue. Must it exist? Must something exist, rather than the colloquial version of nothing? Why? Search me. My speculation wanders off to universes that probably failed, wherein nary a star formed. Unavoidably, a universe occurred where things went correctly, although my current understanding of a Big Bang event demands galaxies form. Universes might exist that defy all of my notions of physics or reason/law.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,647



« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2011, 06:16:55 AM »

Yes but these atheists could just defend that by saying they don't believe in any of the gods that all religions attest to (eventhough they are varied).

Provided the fact that atheism is theoretically defined as lack of faith many atheists sound a lot more certain about their convictions than many religious people...
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,575



« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2012, 03:12:30 AM »

I usually feel agnosticism is a short-lived crossroads to leaning one way or another.

You still sure about that?  Grin
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,067


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2012, 08:57:35 AM »

I usually feel agnosticism is a short-lived crossroads to leaning one way or another.

You still sure about that?  Grin

I suppose most of the time  Wink

The interesting thing though that despite all of this, most agnostics really are atheists in a sense.  They look for evidence and will never find it.  Their main foundation is the same as atheists.

On the flip side, the way most atheists today define their beliefs have an element of agnosticism in it.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2012, 08:59:02 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
lovesupreme
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 795



« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2012, 02:17:43 AM »

Although the terms are malleable, this is what I have come to understand:

An agnostic is someone who does not believe that it is man's place to know whether or not there is a creator.
An atheist is someone who does not believe there is creator.

A typical agnostic and a typical atheist would lead very similar lives. Their theological (or lack thereof) difference deals with the ability to believe; one thinks he can believe something, the other does not.

Of course, in common parlance, an atheist usually refers to someone who claims that there is no creator (which, in my opinion, is a very bold assertion). I would place more extreme views under the umbrella term of anti-theism, that is, those who aggressively oppose a belief in a creator and those who hold that belief. In my opinion, those people only perpetuate the close-mindedness they claim to combat.

But all of the above is only my belief. I will readily admit to knowing only what I know, which is very little, and nothing else. Smiley
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 02:18:27 AM by lovesupreme » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,575



« Reply #16 on: April 21, 2012, 12:55:00 PM »

There's like a dozen different types of agnosticism, and a half dozen differnet types of atheism, but fwiw...

When I say agnostic, speaking of my own outlook, I am saying that I have not come across enough evidence to swing me either way at this point. I also suspect there is not, and never will be, enough evidence to be either a theist or atheist with any substantial degree of confidence. When I speak of evidence here I am not just talking about reasoned/rational/objective stuff, but any kind or argument or idea, including religious experience/feelings and other such things.

When most people say they are atheist--nowadays, anyway--what they mean is that they lack belief in a God or gods. They realise that they can't prove there is no God or gods, they just think the odds of there being one/some are so low that they might as well say there aren't any. They sometimes use the example of fairies: atheists can't prove fairies don't exist, but the chance of them existing is so small that the atheists feel it pretty safe to go about their lives assuming the fairies don't exist.
Logged
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2012, 01:55:26 PM »

There's like a dozen different types of agnosticism, and a half dozen differnet types of atheism, but fwiw...

When I say agnostic, speaking of my own outlook, I am saying that I have not come across enough evidence to swing me either way at this point. I also suspect there is not, and never will be, enough evidence to be either a theist or atheist with any substantial degree of confidence. When I speak of evidence here I am not just talking about reasoned/rational/objective stuff, but any kind or argument or idea, including religious experience/feelings and other such things.

When most people say they are atheist--nowadays, anyway--what they mean is that they lack belief in a God or gods. They realise that they can't prove there is no God or gods, they just think the odds of there being one/some are so low that they might as well say there aren't any. They sometimes use the example of fairies: atheists can't prove fairies don't exist, but the chance of them existing is so small that the atheists feel it pretty safe to go about their lives assuming the fairies don't exist.

It's always sad when atheists get hung up over such things and feel the need to compare God to, for example, the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." Empirical rationalism has been more or less devastating on Western spirituality.

By the way why isn't this thread locked?? Didn't the OP turn out to be an account created by someone else on this forum?
« Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 01:56:43 PM by NightOwl » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,575



« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2012, 04:31:04 PM »

It's always sad when atheists get hung up over such things and feel the need to compare God to, for example, the "Flying Spaghetti Monster."

Seems like a fair idea they're promoting.  Smiley
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,495



« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2012, 11:20:04 PM »

There's like a dozen different types of agnosticism, and a half dozen differnet types of atheism, but fwiw...

When I say agnostic, speaking of my own outlook, I am saying that I have not come across enough evidence to swing me either way at this point. I also suspect there is not, and never will be, enough evidence to be either a theist or atheist with any substantial degree of confidence. When I speak of evidence here I am not just talking about reasoned/rational/objective stuff, but any kind or argument or idea, including religious experience/feelings and other such things.

When most people say they are atheist--nowadays, anyway--what they mean is that they lack belief in a God or gods. They realise that they can't prove there is no God or gods, they just think the odds of there being one/some are so low that they might as well say there aren't any. They sometimes use the example of fairies: atheists can't prove fairies don't exist, but the chance of them existing is so small that the atheists feel it pretty safe to go about their lives assuming the fairies don't exist.

Not a complaint, but lovesupreme gave me a perspective of agnosticism that would not naturally occur to me.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,575



« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2012, 05:36:04 AM »

Not a complaint, but lovesupreme gave me a perspective of agnosticism that would not naturally occur to me.

Fair enough Smiley
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,425


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2012, 11:08:48 AM »

There's like a dozen different types of agnosticism, and a half dozen differnet types of atheism, but fwiw...

When I say agnostic, speaking of my own outlook, I am saying that I have not come across enough evidence to swing me either way at this point.
Evidence for what?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,575



« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2012, 11:16:35 AM »

There's like a dozen different types of agnosticism, and a half dozen differnet types of atheism, but fwiw...

When I say agnostic, speaking of my own outlook, I am saying that I have not come across enough evidence to swing me either way at this point.
Evidence for what?

Take your pick. Religion, God, Christianity, Jesus, Orthodoxy. Though my post was poorly worded as I wouldn't say I'm an agnostic... or leastwise, I'm a fair distance (in the direction of theism) from where I was when I first left the Church 6 years ago.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,699



« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2012, 11:41:24 AM »

There's like a dozen different types of agnosticism, and a half dozen differnet types of atheism, but fwiw...

When I say agnostic, speaking of my own outlook, I am saying that I have not come across enough evidence to swing me either way at this point.
Evidence for what?

Take your pick. Religion, God, Christianity, Jesus, Orthodoxy. Though my post was poorly worded as I wouldn't say I'm an agnostic... or leastwise, I'm a fair distance (in the direction of theism) from where I was when I first left the Church 6 years ago.

I hope you are not offended for me saying this: Glory be to God! Lord, help Asteriktos take those last steps and draw him into Your bosom.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Tags: atheism 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.112 seconds with 52 queries.