Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fanman]

Eduk,

Fanman, you didn't really answer question 1. Which God/Gods are you agnostic about? All of them?

I don't believe that any of the Gods purported by any of the religions that I know of exist. What I'm agnostic about, is that I think there may be an intelligent creative force in the universe, something that would seem to us like a “God”, but that is not necessarily like any God described by the numerous religions. That there may be an intelligent creative force, is a far as I'm willing to speculate. I don't add any form of identity to that supposition, it is just something that I believe may be possible.

Where do you draw the line between God/Gods and other things which you don't 'know' don't exist. For example are you agnostic about Santa Claus, and if not why not?

I don't really understand the first part of your question (but I'll try to answer as I understand it). I don't really draw a line, such as to say, this can exist and this cannot exist, I just don't believe based upon what I understand is being claimed. Re the Santa Claus question, you're surely jesting?

I don't think it needs to be in relation to anything. A theist might go to church. They may say they believe gay people are evil. They may pray etc etc. An atheist would do something else other than go to church, they can of course still hate gay people but they can't say it is for religious reasons. As f4 says if you are judging purely by action there may well be next to no difference between atheist, agnostic and theist. Actually my suspicion is that on the whole there is no difference (if judging by action) but that is a different conversation, I am responding to claims other people have made. I myself do not claim agnostics act differently, but I am interested in those who claim that they do.

My actions have certainly changed from when I was a theist, in that I've stopped partaking in the religious activities I did. I suppose I could say that my actions changed to suit my new world view in that respect. Generally speaking, I think that people's beliefs affect their behaviour/actions, although I'm not sure if agnostics engage in any actions that are inherent to agnosticism?

[Eduk]

Fanman would it be fair then to say you are an atheist? As in not a theist?
Your particular definition of God you may well be agnostic towards. But surely there is no religion which claims your idea of God as their God?

[Fanman]

Eduk,

I don't think I can be called an atheist, because even though I don't believe that Gods exist, I don't think its impossible that one of the Gods purported by different religions could exist. I also have my own idea about what a "God" could be like, but essentially I just don't know for certain. So even though I don't believe, in terms of actually knowing, I am on the fence. No, there isn't a religion which claims my idea of God, maybe my views are closer to pantheism or panentheism? Each religion has it's own conceptualisation of God which are far from what I've asserted. Although I do think that religions purport that there's universal agency, which is where my belief in them being right ends.

[Sy Borg]

Greta what do you mean by santa god?

The huge bearded father figure that rewards the nice and punishes the naughty.

The reason I say your God is because I don't think it is obvious, at least to me, which God or Gods you are agnostic about and which you are atheist about. Actually it reminds me of the line about a theist is an atheist with one exception.

You seem a nice enough person but you could not have made more clear how dull you find my writing style, given that you missed this posted above

I suspect that many believers are talking about more or less the same thing, but plenty are as closed minded towards other religions as any atheist, whom Dawkins noted simply disbelieve one more religion than theists do.

I don't posit any of the gods suggested - the closest would perhaps be Spinoza's.

I had an extremely trippy peak experience about five years ago that can only be described as spiritual. I found it embarrassing in a sense because what happened flew in the face of the rationalism that had been developing in my mind. What does one do with such an experience? It would be illogical to deny it happened, and it would be illogical to be oversure that I didn't just get lucky with brain chemicals. So I'm agnostic and only care about the myths insofar as some of the protagonists and writers seem to have enjoyed the same kind of experience.

What did I sense? If not brain chemicals, why would one assume that the Master of the Universe was talking to them? The smarter theists say God is within. Well, quarks are probably very much like the stuff of the (near) singularity of the big bang, so that's a bit like God being within - although they seem rather more functional than communicative.

Maybe it was just brain chemicals? Maybe it's as indigenous people say - the spirits of ancestors? Or unknown mental machinations of the biosphere, Earth, solar system, Milky Way, Laniakea or some other subgroup of The All?

I personally have never seen atheism as a stance that made sense independent of theism. Without theism I may as well say I am atheist of something I can't define, or invent my own God and be atheist about that. So in that sense I am agnostic about something I can't define.

I agree. The entire debate might be askew, irrelevant. I'm glad I had the experience, aside from the fact that it cleared my head to solve some prior personal problems and existential mistakes, because it made me realise that there is another kind of consciousness that is possible (aside from normal intoxication). Incredibly hard to describe - I had enormous clarity while in a whirlwind of confusion about what was going on (a bit of confusion between first person and the "third person" of our inner observer/critic).

After that experience, if I'd had a different background or character, I would now be preaching to anyone who'd listen about how I'd been touched by God. It was an obvious conclusion, given my society's bland Christian indoctrination. I wonder what impression one might have of such an experience without "having the evidence tainted" beforehand - to experience what they call "cosmic consciousness" without running it through the filters of cultural stories? Maybe scared?

The fact that my interpretations of the experience were interfered with by prior images put into my mind by society, along with the possibility that it was just a dopamine spike, means agnosticism is my only option. So the only thing I believe in is love - which was a major aspect of the peak experience - an all encompassing sense of unconditional, unsentimental love. So think that love is important and its offshoots - gratitude and goodwill. Some people seem understand this right from the cradle. Others seemingly need to be beaten over the head with a huge peak experience for the penny to drop ...

[Eduk]

Apologies Greta I did read your Dawkins comment about atheists. I was meaning to reference you more clearly when I said it seems to apply to agnostics too.

[Sy Borg]

Thoughts on the other part of my post, Eduk? That's just the admin :)

Would you say you are closer to being atheist or agnostic?

[Count Lucanor]

Agnosticism can be presented like this. No one knows God is real and no one knows God isn't real. Therefore we should act as if either proposition were possible.

Ideally I'd like to ask a few questions of anyone with the above opinion.

1. Which God? By which I mean various religious claim to know specific mutually exclusive Gods. Which God are you being agnostic about and does it matter?
2. How do your actions change, with practical examples, if you are agnostic.
3. If you are agnostic, as defined above, then is it exactly 50/50 whether or not God exists. And does that matter?

I've asked these kinds of questions before but they often go unanswered. Or sometimes they are acknowledged but then ignored.

When you consider all the belief scenarios, being agnostic, atheist or theist, could mean different things. Let's see all the options, assigning letters to different gods:

Possible gods:

A = a set of one, all-encompassing god, with X properties. It excludes any other set of one, all-encompassing gods.
B, C, D, etc, = other sets of one, all-encompassing gods, with properties Y or Z. They are also mutually exclusive.
nG = a set of diverse, mutually non-exclusive gods.

Possible belief scenarios:

1. People can believe that A is real. Any other god (B, C, D, etc., or nG) that is proposed is not real.
2. People can believe that A might be real, but other gods (B, C, D, etc. or nG) that are proposed have no chance of being real.
3. People can believe that ANY god (A, B, C, D, etc., or nG) might be real and there's no way of determining which one.
4. People can believe that ANY god of the type A, B, C, D, etc., might be real, and there's no way of determining which one, but no god of the type nG might be real.
5. People can believe that NO god is real.

At first sight, 1 and 5 clearly correspond to theists and atheists, while 2 to 4 to agnostics. However, things are a little more complicated, as we can see:

in relation to A, 1 is a strong theist, but also a strong atheist in relation to any other god.

In relation to A, 2 is an agnostic, but also a strong atheist in relation to any other god.

3 seems to be the only true full time agnostic.

4 is agnostic in relation to some type of gods, but an atheist in relation to some other type of gods.

Finally, 5 is the only true full time atheist.

All of this implies different answers to the questions presented in the OP.

[Eduk]

Nice summary count. And quite logical. However it doesn't seem accurate. Many agnostics seem to be agnostic only to a God of their personal definition. So by your above definitions I'd say that agnostics, at least the ones answering here, more fall into category 1.

Although it also seems fair to say there are degrees of agnosticism. Many people felt it was foolish to make any attempt to answer my original question 3. But many people answers relied on probability and the imposibility of absolute knowledge.

Greta I think I can answer your question and comment of counts opinion that an atheist should be in category 5 at the same time.

I have no personal conception of God other than that which has been expressed to me by others. I do not believe that any of those expressions corresponds meaningfully to anything real. This is not, quite, the same thing as saying there is no God.

To start with I think it's fair to say there is no absolute knowledge for a human. Or at least no known absolute knowledge. For example I don't know absolutely that there is no absolute knowledge, but that rather supports the claim, slightly paradoxically. It also points at issues with the concept of absolute.

So I cannot be absolute so my experience is built purely on probabilities. I can be maximally sure. I can also also force absolutism axiomatically and assume. For example I may as well act maximally sure that existence is real as I have no reason at all to do otherwise. I can define existence to be real.

So likewise a person can claim X and I can't strictly claim to be absolutely certain X is false but I can say I am maximally sure and I have axiomatically decided to act as if absolutely sure. So if a person claims that I should not use contraception because of something to do with their God I am maximally sure they are incorrect.

Of course some people are more sophisticated than to make such an obviously, relatively, untrue claim. They may make any claim, that they know, at all and I am still maximally sure they are incorrect. Although the claim may be vastly more reasonable I still know, maximally, that they don't know.

Now there is the usual usage of agnostic and the more accurate/useful usage of agnostic. Normatively when people say they are agnostic they mean they aren't practicing any religion but at the same time they don't want to offend anyone who is, plus its something they really don't think about much. But strictly agnosticism is to with knowledge and what can be known.

So I've already said I am agnostic towards all knowledge. But that's not very useful so I use agnosticism within human limits.

So, in short, no previously defined God has a chance of being accurate in a useful and meaningful way. Which is not to say that an undefined God doesn't exist, but here we immediately hit a brick wall as God is the wrong word for such a concept.

[Sy Borg]

So, in short, no previously defined God has a chance of being accurate in a useful and meaningful way. Which is not to say that an undefined God doesn't exist, but here we immediately hit a brick wall as God is the wrong word for such a concept.

I've been reading yours and Count's material and thinking how little of it resonates (I even prefer Dawkins's more nuanced 7-point gradation from theism to atheism to Count's 5-point list above) - until this closer. I am not sure that God will be the only category error we have made either, just the biggest of them.

My understanding is that God is be the perceived interface with the human mind - the accessible part of the deity - rather than the entity itself, hence so much anthropomorphism as phenomena are mistaken for noumena.

[Count Lucanor]

Nice summary count. And quite logical. However it doesn't seem accurate. Many agnostics seem to be agnostic only to a God of their personal definition. So by your above definitions I'd say that agnostics, at least the ones answering here, more fall into category 1.

No, because that personal definition would still make it a set of one god with X properties. So if they take an agnostic view, it falls in category 2. It could only fall into category 1 if they took a theistic view.

[Count Lucanor]

So, in short, no previously defined God has a chance of being accurate in a useful and meaningful way. Which is not to say that an undefined God doesn't exist, but here we immediately hit a brick wall as God is the wrong word for such a concept.

What you're saying is that no concept of god can be accurate. But accurate in relation to what? Obviously the answer is: in relation to a concept of god that you (or someone else) have chosen. That directly contradicts the initial premise that no concept of god can be accurate. If no concept of god can be accurate, there's no god that can be asserted as real at all.

[Eduk]

Greta I don't understand what you mean. But I'll guess.
As I lean over an ant it is true, to the ant, that the light dims. But I myself am somewhat more than a dimmer of light.
Count. A few agnostics, like Greta, seem to be agnostic only to one God. Not all Gods. Other agnostics seem to be saying all Gods are the same God which is the same as saying there is only one God. I'm not saying they are right to do this, only that they appear to do this.

[Eduk]

Count. That is right there's no concept of God which can be asserted as real.
I may be agnostic to an undefined God but as soon as you begin to define God it becomes a quagmire. Even the word God is less than ideal.
Let me put it another way. Have you ever considered the million monkeys on a million type writters writing Shakespeare? What would you estimate the odds were of writing Shakespeare? Now what would you consider the odds were that a monkey recognised that they had written Shakespeare?

[Count Lucanor]

Count. A few agnostics, like Greta, seem to be agnostic only to one God. Not all Gods.

Fine. Obviously, those agnostics fall into category #2.

Other agnostics seem to be saying all Gods are the same God which is the same as saying there is only one God. I'm not saying they are right to do this, only that they appear to do this.

Your statement is confusing because you claim that some agnostics assert that "all gods are the same god", which would make them believers in some god, not agnostics. Perhaps you mean that they are saying "all definitions of gods are ultimately reduced to one definition" but that has nothing to do with they embracing or rejecting such definition, in other words, in taking a position as theists, agnostics or atheists. When they do take a position, then they'll end up being categorized as I explained above. I mean, they can agree what the correct theoretical definition is, and yet reject the reality of such an entity. I could come up with the correct definition of a mermaid, but say right away it's just fantasy.

Count. That is right there's no concept of God which can be asserted as real.

Which is the same as saying that no god is real.

I may be agnostic to an undefined God...

Hmmm...nope. For it being called a god means that at least some properties define it, otherwise you wouldn't be able to identify it as such. So, rather than "undefined", seems like an ambiguous, nebulous concept of a god, but still something categorized in the set of divine entities. You can still embrace it, reject it, or find hard to make up your mind.

but as soon as you begin to define God it becomes a quagmire. Even the word God is less than ideal.

As I said before, you're just putting in contrast one notion of god against the other. It seems you even claim there's an ideal to aim to.

Let me put it another way. Have you ever considered the million monkeys on a million type writters writing Shakespeare? What would you estimate the odds were of writing Shakespeare? Now what would you consider the odds were that a monkey recognised that they had written Shakespeare?

I'm not sure what this has to do with our current discussion, but if it means that the works of Shakespeare are god, the writing monkeys the attempts to describe it and the illuminated monkeys the ones that got it, the analogy doesn't work. First, the writing monkeys are not really attempting to describe anything, they are most likely not conscious of what they're doing. There's no chance any amount of monkeys writing on typewriters would match any text from Shakespeare, but that's because using monkeys is just another way of playing with random generation. That's not what happens in attempts to define gods. Now, the other question is of a different nature, because "odds" doesn't mean here what it meant in the first question. It's not a question of chance: monkeys would not recognize authorship of a text simply because they are cognitively incapable of doing so. And that, again, is not what would happen in attempts to define god.

[Spectrum]

1. Which God? By which I mean various religious claim to know specific mutually exclusive Gods. Which God are you being agnostic about and does it matter?

2. How do your actions change, with practical examples, if you are agnostic.

3. If you are agnostic, as defined above, then is it exactly 50/50 whether or not God exists. And does that matter?

I am a not-a-theist. My views are;

1. There are two major categories of God, i.e. empirically or non-empirical based.
If one's [theist or non-theist] view of God is empirically-based [bearded man, santa god, something scientific, god particle, etc], then one has no choice but to be an agnostic, e.g. like Dawkins who is 1/7 agnostic. This is because in the empirical world there is no such thing as certainty and the default is, anything empirical is possible subject to empirical evidence.

The other type of God is the ontological God which is non-empirical and is based purely from pure reason abstracting from empirical events. In this case one can be a believer, agnostic or an absolutely [100%] non-theist or atheist.
Note my 'God is an impossibility' thread that counter theists and agnostic totally.

My point is the empirical-based God is a sort of 'half-baked' God while God-proper has to be an ontological non-empirical God.

3. Whether one is a 50/50 or 99/1 agnostic will depend one's psychological state with reference to the degree of the grip of the existential crisis has on one's psyche.
DNA wise ALL humans inherently has the potential of an existential crisis and it is active in the majority of people and compelling them into theism.
Thus theism is fundamentally primordial and as humanity progresses people will be weaning away from theism* and in the process we have increasing degrees of agnosticism till they have the courage to give up the idea of a God into being a '100%' non-theist.
... (* because theism is not rationally sound or theism has evil elements and all sorts of negatives.)