what is agnosticism?

Squawkers

true in a sense.
Yet false in that
To much philosophical hair spliting.
For supernatural is just a word to say..what we dont YET UNDERSTAND.
God is not supernatural
Any more than a star is.
Yet we undersand stars to a degree.
yet not the idea of god.
why.
Because stars exist in the sky.. and gods are just nice stories
without anything existing but WORDS.

WE DONT KNOW YET.
All understanding takes time.
Process[to understanding] requires the duration of process.

Agnosticism is the period when data is insuficient.
This does NOT mean it always will be.

Contemporary descriptions of agnosticism are overdetailed rubbish.
Agnoisticism is.........
WE DONT KNOW..YET.

Occam

 

As far as agnosticism goes, I would argue that it's more than just a temporary skepticism. Rather, the agnostic would claim that we cannot have knowledge of God's existence given the NATURE of God (rather than because of our own apparently limited minds). In fact, many would argue that atheism (the way it's normally defined) is just as silly as theism. After all, how can one say 'I have justified true belief that God does not (rather than does) exist.'? I would agree with this position about atheism and theism.

In the spirit of pragmatism, let me propose the following about atheism & agnosticism (subtitle: How the atheist can have his cake and eat it too). I claim to be an atheist. This seems strange given that I always say "I don't know where God lives, so I can't say whether or not anyone is home." While I cannot KNOW (i.e. have justifed, true belief) that God doesn't exist I go about my Being as though there is no God. I can't have definitive knowledge (let's say knowledge of a thing in-itself) about God or most all things (though knowing the truth of the proposition 'I exist' seems to be an exception), but I don't need to, do I?

To take William James's example, I don't have definitive knowledge of my wristwatch. In fact, I have a pretty impoverished view of it. I cannot repair it, nor could I build one. I could become a jewler, though, and learn about it much more intimately. But I don't need to. I have [practical] knowledge of my wristwatch and this is easily demonstrable. I can tell what time it is to anyone who asks, I can make my appointments and catch the bus (rather than miss it). I can even tell someone that he was late to meeting and have him understand me. I know my wristwatch my conception of it WORKS, and works consistently within the world.

As far as God goes, something the same is at work. I have a rather impoverished view of God (e.g. I can't really get my mind around omnipotence, and don't truly grasp the notion of an uncaused cause). Nevertheless, I'm able to reckon competently with most all of my worldly endeavors without appealing to God to explain them. That is, I can appeal to a natural, rather than supernatural, explanation for why most things are the way they are. Moreover, when I do stop and think about God's existence (in the robust theological sense), I find better reasons for denying it than affirming it.

Nevertheless, I count myself as an atheist because I go about my Being as though God didn't exist. This may sound wishy-washy, but it is no more wishy-washy than my knowledge of the watch. My conception of God WORKS, and works consistently, (just like my conception of the watch works) and that is why I affirm it.

Others' thoughts?

 

It's more looking at it in a more than natural way. Supernatural is being able to skip an atom across an ocean and have all atoms within the ocean behave according to natural laws and cause a message to wash up on the beach written with kelp instead of ink. Of course, that is a very basic thing... the whole natural order was established with supernatural written through it...

 

Kharakov

[opinion]
The razor of occam posits a different scenerio.
The minimum number of assumptions.
EVERYTHING is natural. Everything is exactly what it is and no more.

If 'god' skips that atom, and a message comes to be.
Thats entirelry natural.
If it was not.. it could not exist withing the laws/structure
of reality

You attempt to 'mystify' a process called 'causality'.
Because the 'cause' may be what we call a god.


Occam

 

Well, I consider the natural laws to be natural, and someone who throws an atom at the ocean at the exact right angle to produce a message within the natural laws to be supernatural.

You know, I like to delineate between natural and supernatural. Of course, even the "natural" can be called supernatural because it comes from God. The way i differentiate between the terms in my own mind is this: Natural occurences are the linear occurences in our life (you know, this conversation, you driving a car to pogo's, etc.); the supernatural occurences are when the linear occurences meet up to match perfectly together, like you walking into a room and the people are talking about what you were thinking about, or you think a thought, hop in your car, and the radio is playing a song about what you were thinking about... The supernatural arrangement is readily apparent in my life- although I still pursue and act upon my natural linear understanding, supernatural occurences and events happen to me constantly- my linear 'natural' method of living leads me into numerous supernatural occurences.

I prefer the term humidify, but mystify is aight.

Umm, I am not the one mystifying anything. I am stuck in the mist, not the maker of the mist.

 

First off, I DO believe that ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable.

But just because that's true, does not imply in any way, that I don't seek out the answers anyway, or that it doesn't matter to me.

 

Why would you seek answers if you believe that the ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable?

 

To find out if it's possible to make it known, of course. Ultimate reality is, currently, highly unknown. If we could unravel ultimate reality, we could do a world of good, or even a world of bad (the thrill is to work not to let that happen).

I seek answers for the same reason everyone else does: To know what it's all about, if anything. I'm just, as Occam noticed, humble and down to Earth enough to not get conceited and realize that I don't know everything.

 

Hikaru

Seems so obvious does it not?

Always people try to impose absolutes. So they feel safe.
So they have bounderies to keep their backs to.
THIS cannot be known.. or THAT.
This is infinite,, and that is not.
[there are THIS many stars in the sky]

Since occam has started posting here.. He has opinioned over and over.
That our arrogance. Our belief that we know enought to make deductions on the true nature of reality.
Is based on no thing but ego.
We have through reason and desire. come to understand 'much'.
But only 'much' in relation to how much we did not understand 2000
years ago.


Occam

PS..
Hikaru
Love your avatar of freckly girl...how innocent

 

Occam:

Well met, haven't talked with Occam in a while. =)

Who is Occam calling a freckly girl? Are men so egotistical nowadays that it is emasculating to associate oneself with flowers and long, straight hair? Hogwash!

The Hip Forums entry says "young hippie" for that avatar. And, that's exactly what Hikaru is. Besides, no other avatar is more fitting.

But Occam deserves more than a monkey to his name.

 

If I said "I believe something is unknowable", it would be because I have seen evidence that something is unknowable, it would not be because I have not seen evidence that the thing is knowable.
It's the whole 'lack of evidence for somethings existence = evidence of somethings non existence' argument, which we both (logically) disagree with.

 

Look here mate...that monkey is my uncle bob..
Seeing that science has finally decided there a 3 intellegent races
[at least] on this planet..
Chimps, orangutangs and 'homo stupidus' [thats us]
Then occam claims relatives in the saner parts of town.
On the right side of the tracks

Where the chimps live.

Occam

 

Kharakov

How many bongs have you had?

Get it right..If something is unknowable then
then
You KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT.
and
If You know nothing about it, how can you say it is unknowable?

Occam

 

Yeah, and how can you believe something is unknowable when you know nothing about it? Sheesh... the whole agnostic position is a joke that people (who take it seriously) don't get.

agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable

Of course there is the other position (yours I believe) : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god, which (at first glance) is not as silly as the first position (unless the person devises arguments to defend their lack of knowledge instead of seeking knowledge- that is totally silly).

 

Is there anything you can show me as proof of the existence of God, Kharakov?

I find it silly that you are 30 years old and still have imaginary friends.

 

Ask God for evidence. Anything I provide you is hearsay, and without experiencial knowledge given to you by God, you will not be able to discern the truth through hearsay (you will always doubt what others say about God unless God gives you experiences of your own).

This doesn't mean I will stop telling you the truth, it just means you will not believe the truth unless you experience it yourself.

Yeah. I'm silly like that.

 

Can you tell me what one of these experiences was?

 

hoo......

i need to keep on top of some of these threads a little better.

what i was originally getting at was something broader than
"don't-know" about GOD.

an agnostic would say that he cannot believe in god
until god's existence can be satisfactorily proven.
until proof comes, he says "i don't know."
however, what can be satisfactorily proven, at all?
not only that, but what do we rest our scientific plot on?
what we percieve to be real is questionable.
dreams and drugs and mental illness show that pretty simply already.

it just seems that a true agnostic should broaden his philosophy to interpret everything, not just the subject of GOD.
if "knowledge" depends on proof, and you don't know how to go about getting proof,
then what knowledge can you have, at all?

...was my original question.

 

i agree; it's a silly definition - "...unknown and probably unknowable". doesn't that last bit indicate knowledge? a contradiction.

 

yes, and i knew occam would have a relieving answer for me.... =)

what is this support? that is, what supports our perception?
what supports my idea of ME and memory and logic and experience,
when it comes to it, all of my knowledge?
maybe those garden elves of yours are playing a trick on me; maybe anything.

is the agnostic philosophy only intended to define god?
i'm thinking..... what DO we know?
what DO we have "sufficient data" for?
i'm not satisfied that my perceptions are real/fact.

that's right; i am free to believe in god if i wish,
(that is, if believe = venture to presume)
but i could never say "i know this god exists."


and that is my philosophy of agnosticism regarding god -
my knowledge (or lack thereof) makes me an agnostic,
and anyone who cannot say "i know god exists" is agnostic, as simple as that.




love