What do you think of agnosticism?

Originally posted by josephw

You are a spiritual being that was designed to know, and have a complete and full relationship with your creator. Any other description of who and what we are is a lie.

Open your mind to greater possibilities before you slam the door shut again.[/b]

I am always tickled when religious zealots tell me that I am closing my mind to greater possibilities, when it is clear to me that their minds are very closed indeed. I have actually read and studied the Bible - trained for the priesthood oddly enough. I still read about religious matters. My mind is not closed. But I find Genesis for example to be a ludicrous text by any account and I see migrating birds visit the shoreline near my house with a far greater sense of wonder. And I would describe myself as Agnostic.

"Faith" is a gift that is not earned. Most people seem to have affirmed this over many centuries. Well, I have tried to be "open" to this gift for a number of years (seven) and have to assume that it is a gift I do not have or did not receive. Maybe you think an eigth year would have done the trick? Or nine?

Similarly, it relies upon Revelation. But I am not satisfied with the claims of other people to have enjoyed the benefit of revelation. To me it lacks credibility.

So I am agnostic - I do not believe in God. I do not see why that has to make me a "liar" or otherwise evil. Since I have not the benefit of a gift, nor of revelation, I expect those who believe they are more fortunate in that respect to be less arrogant about their gift which, after all, by their own account, is unearned. In some cases, spectacularly so.

Originally posted by finnegan
I am always tickled when religious zealots tell me that I am closing my mind to greater possibilities, when it is clear to me that their minds are very closed indeed. I have actually read and studied the Bible - trained for the priesthood oddly enough. I still read about religious matters. My mind is not closed. But I find Genesis for example to be a ludicr ift which, after all, by their own account, is unearned. In some cases, spectacularly so.

Just a quick question (not challenging your points), what precisely is meant by knowledge through revelation so as to differentiate it from other types of knowledge?

I've done a google search but found a mash of garbage to wade through looking for a glimmer of the answer.

Question open to others.

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
It seems like a mainstreamed label for American atheists to me. Am I mistaken?

My undertanding is that agnostics say " I don't know" when discussing religion and the atheist says "I know there is not".

Originally posted by rwingett
Pretty much. 'Agnosticism' is only useful for people who buy into the mistaken notion that atheism necessarily means 'hard atheism' and who therefore think they need a separate term to distinguish themselves from that.

It is my contention that agnosticism does not exist as a separate category apart from theism or atheism. 'Agnostic' is an adjective that ...[text shortened]... ody is just an agnostic. At the end of the day there are really only theists and atheists.

Hear this man as he speaks the TRUTH.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
One of my favorite quotes, relative to the (supposed) God question:

Atheism has two tenets:
1. God doesn't exist
2. And I hate Him

Boohoo. 😵

Originally posted by Agerg
Just a quick question (not challenging your points), what precisely is meant by [b]knowledge through revelation so as to differentiate it from other types of knowledge?

I've done a google search but found a mash of garbage to wade through looking for a glimmer of the answer.

Question open to others.[/b]

Quick answer - the Bible (and of course the Koran, perhaps more so) derive their authority from the claim that they were directly revealed - they are God's Word. So Revealed Knowledge is what we claim to know by direct communication with God (or the Angel Gabriel or a.n.other). So e.g. Moses got his Ten Commandments that way.

Originally posted by caissad4
My undertanding is that agnostics say " I don't know" when discussing religion and the atheist says "I know there is not".

Mine is that Agnostics say I have looked at the evidence and the arguments and I do not believe. Simple as that.

Originally posted by Agerg
Who told you thought does not originate from the brain? 😕

Is that supposed to be a trick question?

You only think thought originates in the brain because that's what you've been told. And who told you that? We know who told you that.

You are a spiritual being residing in a body. If you want to be just a body, then you are really just one dimensional. Your mind is closed to other possibilities because you can only think one dimensionally, i.e. materially.

And the rub of it is, you know, deep inside, that you are more than just what you see in the mirror.

The same goes for the rest of you.

Originally posted by finnegan
I am always tickled when religious zealots tell me that I am closing my mind to greater possibilities, when it is clear to me that their minds are very closed indeed. I have actually read and studied the Bible - trained for the priesthood oddly enough. I still read about religious matters. My mind is not closed. But I find Genesis for example to be a ludicr ...[text shortened]... ift which, after all, by their own account, is unearned. In some cases, spectacularly so.

"...I see migrating birds visit the shoreline near my house with a far greater sense of wonder."

You wouldn't see anything at all if God hadn't created you.

Yes I'm zealous. You bet I am. I'm zealous for you to know the wonder of knowing Him.

Originally posted by josephw
Is that supposed to be a trick question?

You only think thought originates in the brain because that's what you've been told. And who told you that? We know who told you that.

You are a spiritual being residing in a body. If you want to be just a body, then you are really just one dimensional. Your mind is closed to other possibilities because you can ...[text shortened]... that you are more than just what you see in the mirror.

The same goes for the rest of you.

You only think thought originates in the brain because that's what you've been told. And who told you that? We know who told you that.

You are a spiritual being residing in a body. If you want to be just a body, then you are really just one dimensional. Your mind is closed to other possibilities because you can only think one dimensionally, i.e. materially.
I see! 😕
Tell me Joseph; if your hypothesis is true, why is it that people who develop disorders of the brain due to, say, an autoimmune disorder such as multplie sclerosis whereby ones own immune system attacks the tissue surrounding neurons in the brain (decreasing their ability to function properly) or suffer profound head injuries (irreparable brain damage), and other phenomenon negatively affecting the brain such as dementia, strokes, drugs/alcohol, can demonstrate a lack of cognitive ability which they did not have prior?

To clarify the relevance of this question to your above objection, the depth, clarity, responsiveness, recollection, and range of ones thoughts which in turn affect your outlook on life, state of mind, belief set, personality, etc... can be measurably changed given that damage has occured to this organ.

If, as you say, thought, (and I assume you mean also the "person within" ) is to a large extent independent of the brain then one may also draw the conclusion that physical damage to it should not have the effects I claim above. Evidence however shows this is not the case.

And the rub of it is, you know, deep inside, that you are more than just what you see in the mirror.
True in the sense that I have stuff inside me like blood, bones, or organs that I cannot see. Not true in that I think I am a spiritual being.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"...I see migrating birds visit the shoreline near my house with a far greater sense of wonder."

You wouldn't see anything at all if God hadn't created you.

Yes I'm zealous. You bet I am. I'm zealous for you to know the wonder of knowing Him.[/b]

Thank you for your kind intentions. I see that, if you experience your faith as wonderful you might wish to share it. Similarly, I am influenced by the notion so well expressed by Emma Goldman, an Anarchist expelled from the USA because she expressed opinions that were not liked in the Land of the Free and cruelly deported to Bolshevik Russia in 1919. "Atheism, in its negation of gods is at the same time the strongest affirmation of man and through man, the eternal yea to life, purpose and beauty."

There is a choice between trading insults and trading ideas. I enjoy the former and work hard to attain the latter. This is one motivation behind the choice of Agnosticism as a position separate from Atheism. The Victorian, Leslie Stephen, in An Agnostic's Apology, defined it like this. An Agnostic is one who asserts there are limits to the sphere of human intelligence.. and that theology lies outside those limits. A Gnostic, by contrast, holds that our reason can, in some sense, transcend the limits of experience.

As an Agnostic, I can hear the claims of theists with sympathy but I can also hear without being blinded by prejudice the counter claims of Atheists. But because I rely on Reason and do not claim Faith, Divine Revelation or inspiration, nor privilege my own experience over that of others, nor defer to Authority without exercising my own autonomy, I find the claims of Theism obscure and ultimately sterile. Sorry - it's just the way I see it. There is nothing positive that I can obtain through religion that I cannot obtain without. There is much that is negative about religion which I prefer to jettison.

However, Reason, supported by History, tells me that I am not going to eliminate religion by argument. For example, 2000 years of Christianity has failed to eliminate superstition and magical thinking. We still get senior clerics announcing that Aids is God's punishment .... etc. If Christian leaders cannot yet understand let alone act out their own theology then I cannot really see the point of debating with them. In this respect I am with Karen Armstrong in her autobiography - the worst problem with religion is that it is in the hands of people who have none.

Originally posted by josephw
Is that supposed to be a trick question?

You only think thought originates in the brain because that's what you've been told. And who told you that? We know who told you that.

You are a spiritual being residing in a body. If you want to be just a body, then you are really just one dimensional. Your mind is closed to other possibilities because you can ...[text shortened]... that you are more than just what you see in the mirror.

The same goes for the rest of you.

Oh good - I am one of the rest of you so I can respond too.

The wonder is that I am what I see in the mirror. I am not an illusion nor a delusion. And what I see in the mirror I am delighted to affirm. I do not hate me.

I do not understand the objection to being "just a body." You see, whatever I am, experience, imagine or can become remains the case. Remarkable what I am capable of , being just a body. I am what I am prior to any explanation of how or why. I am what I am if I understand, or if I do not, and even if you do not understand I am still what I am. And what I am is remarkable.

If I am a spiritual being residing in the body, then maybe you think that explain something. What does it explain? If my eye sees, then that is remarkable. If my eye passes images to some inner spiritual being, then where is it and how does it see? Is there a deeper inner being inside that spiritual being that can see and how does that inner being within my spiritual being see? Funnily enough I have encountered some very good accounts of how I see, being just a body. I recommend, for example. Damasio. I am very satisfied being just a body. What a piece of luck that I evolved.

[i]Originally posted by josephw

You are a spiritual being residing in a body. If you want to be just a body, then you are really just one dimensional. Your mind is closed to other possibilities because you can only think one dimensionally, i.e. materially.

And the rub of it is, you know, deep inside, that you are more than just what you see in the mirror.

The same goes for the rest of you.[/b]

Your position is based solely on your choice of faith, ipso facto you do not have an open mind - yours is made up. The agnostic position - requiring no such leap - is surely the default position for the open mind?

Originally posted by finnegan
Thank you for your kind intentions. I see that, if you experience your faith as wonderful you might wish to share it. Similarly, I am influenced by the notion so well expressed by Emma Goldman, an Anarchist expelled from the USA because she expressed opinions that were not liked in the Land of the Free and cruelly deported to Bolshevik Russia in 1919. "Athe ...[text shortened]... raphy - the worst problem with religion is that it is in the hands of people who have none.

...if you experience your faith as wonderful you might wish to share it.
I suppose you could have been more condescending in your conveyance of the thought, but I am hard-pressed to figure out what that sentence would have looked like. This idea tells me that your previous religious experience was just that: a religious experience, totally devoid of a taste of the reality of true spirituality which is borne on man's acknowledgement of his need coupled with God's provision.

While there are many religious folks who fall into the category of giddy sentimentality-inspired sharing syndrome, do you honestly think that Christianity would have survived--- let alone thrived--- for two millennium based solely on its adherents enthusiasm? Is your opinion of anyone who voluntarily takes the name 'Christian' so diminished that your default position is one of contempt toward their intellect? If so, can you out-of-hand dismiss the plethora of examples of highly regarded Christian thinkers throughout history?

Christianity is not shared by all for merely emotional reasons; some of us actually realize what it represents: revelation from God. Truth is a very compelling reason to open one's mouth.

There is a choice between trading insults and trading ideas. I enjoy the former and work hard to attain the latter.
Amen on both accounts. You're in good company here, provided your skin is thick and you can follow the melody despite the ever-present white noise.

But because I rely on Reason and do not claim Faith, Divine Revelation or inspiration, nor privilege my own experience over that of others, nor defer to Authority without exercising my own autonomy, I find the claims of Theism obscure and ultimately sterile.
Out of curiosity, what informs your reason?

If Christian leaders cannot yet understand let alone act out their own theology then I cannot really see the point of debating with them.
Baby, bath water. 'Leader' these days is equated with some group. Herd mentality in no manner represents the message of Christianity. I know of more than a few 'leaders' of atheistic thought who make themselves look positively silly with nearly every sentence which leaves their mouths--- quite an embarrassment to other earnest considerate atheists.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
..This idea tells me that your previous religious experience was just that: a religious experience, totally devoid of a taste of the reality of true spirituality

Maybe I am devoid - maybe that is my own point - maybe though it was not for the want of trying.

"...do you honestly think that Christianity would have survived--- let alone thrived--- for two millennium based solely on its adherents enthusiasm? Is your opinion of anyone who voluntarily takes the name 'Christian' so diminished that your default position is one of contempt toward their intellect? If so, can you out-of-hand dismiss the plethora of examples of highly regarded Christian thinkers throughout history?..."

Well for more than a thousand years many highly intelligent people thought Aristotle the last word on natural philosophy. I do not think they were stupid or even foolish - they were just wrong. Ditto for Ptolomy's cosmology and Galin's medicine. I have two choices, I can dismiss them out of hand (and that is a perfectly justified position - after all they were wrong) or I can regard them with fascination as people who did their best and laid the foundations without which we would not have arrived at modern thought at all. Human knowledge including science proceeds by disproving what has gone before and replacing poor theories with better ones. I do not believe that we can arrive at wisdom in one perfect step. Isaac Newton was an alchemist. Pythagoras was a mystic. The market for astronomy and related developments in mathematics was almost exclusively to support astrology, and Copernicus was initially accepted not for any theory he produced (that was ignored for a long time) but because he offered a better way to calculate the positions of planets and stars for astrological predictions. Oh it's silly to mock early thinkers for their lack of modern techniques and theories. As Newton said, he could only see so far because he stood on the shoulders of giants.

I had an uncle who was a priest and argued with apparent sincerity that he knew the Catholic Church was God's because it had been led so poorly by such incompetent and unworthy people for so long that without God it could not have survived. Personally I would prefer to point out its close association with power and wealth. It served powerful interests very well and that is what survived.

"...Out of curiosity, what informs your reason?..."

Many years of education, reading, discussion, debate and thought. Interesting test of this is as follows. What I believe today bears no resemblance to my early indoctrination and is a very selective choice from many different attempts to influence me. What informs your belief?