Comment by Shine on July 30, 2010 at 10:35am

Agreed. I think that the agnostic stance can only apply to the remote possibility of some heretofore unproposed, undefined, and unobserved transcendent entity. Regarding any specific descriptions of deities as described by other human beings, I think that it is necessary to reject agnosticism and recognize the impossibility of such entities' existence. Otherwise, I can only see cognitive dissonance as the ultimate result of pure agnosticism.

Comment by Reggie on July 30, 2010 at 1:46pm

Not always cowardice. Sometimes it is simply being deferential to something considere by the majority as an acceptable beleif. What frustrates me is that double standard that non-beleiver give to silly beleifs based not on the silliness of the beleif, but on it's social acceptance. Religion has done well to cloak itself in solemn reverence and portray itself as being beyond reproach. Pussyfooting around with a label like agnosticm is just a deferential treatment to those beleifs and is likely subconcious and ingrained for many.

Comment by willailla on July 31, 2010 at 4:17pm

If 'everything is possible', the the possibility that nothing is possible is possible.

Comment by Shine on July 31, 2010 at 4:26pm

Cowardice, maybe, but I also think that there are a lot of literalists who claim agnosticism. After all, it is technically correct; we are all truly lacking any complete knowledge of the supernatural. My issues with the label come from its lack of distinctive description as it applies uniformly to every single human being, much in the same way that the labels "Earthling" or "mammal" do.

However, I do agree that many people may languish under the safety blanket of the label "agnostic" because of the negative impression and general misunderstanding of the term "atheist." The popular misconception of atheism as an active, vicious, and even evil dogma is so pervasive that many are afraid to properly research the term, let alone associate themselves with it. I think that it is this reluctance born of ignorance that may manifest itself as apparent cowardice in those who lay claim to an agnostic platform.

I think that the solution to this epidemic of ideological cowardice is not necessarily for individuals to gain philosophical courage, but instead for the gross misrepresentation of atheism to be corrected amongst the popular conscience. Without the atheistic label being shrouded in the imposing trappings of fear and ostracism, no courage is needed to approach the label and cowardice becomes obsolete.

Comment by Jaume on August 1, 2010 at 7:36pm

I have a question for those of you who choose to call yourselves agnostics. Do you really believe that it is possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster really exists? The standard answer I get when I pose this questions is: anything is possible.

This may be a typical answer you get from people who call themselves agnostics, but it's certainly not a typical agnostic response - which would be "I (don't) believe the FSM exists, but I can't prove it." Or, "- but I don't think it can be proven.", or "- but I think it can't be proven."

I find it interesting that Shine writes

many people may languish under the safety blanket of the label "agnostic" because of the negative impression and general misunderstanding of the term "atheist."

From the replies I can read here, it seems the term "agnostic" gets just the same treatment. I know many dictionaries will give you definitions involving "uncertainty about the existence of (a) god or deity", but these are only common usage definitions. If you balk at an incorrect but common understanding of the term "atheist", why not do "agnostic" the same favor?

Comment by Doug Reardon on August 1, 2010 at 8:49pm

If I were to ask if there were possibly a circle with four right angles and equidistant sides, would you also say that one can't prove that it doesn't exist?

Comment by Jaume on August 1, 2010 at 9:21pm

(Assuming euclidean geometry) of course not, because I know (gnosticism) it can be proven.

Comment by Doug Reardon on August 1, 2010 at 11:47pm

But God, which is equally contradictory, and self negating is a possibility?

Comment by Jaume on August 2, 2010 at 1:45am

But God,

The Abrahamic god, you mean. Actually, I think you're dangerously close to admitting this possibility yourself, since you wrote earlier

Einsteins's, et. al. definitions of god are so vague and so innocuous that even I have to admit to some level of possibility

Why stop here and not add another level? If this 'Einsteinian' god is indeed possible, it's also possible it communicated with Iron Age tribesmen from the Middle East at some point, failed to get its message across, got bored and departed for good. And what's left of the encounter would then be an unreliable account, that got embellished as generations succeeded to generations, and your Abrahamic god is born - the distorted image of a wandering Einsteinian god.

Of course neither you nor I believe the above is true, and it's not even what my original point was about. From the beginning you insist on asking agnostics what they "really believe", but the agnostic position is not about belief, it's about knowledge or the possibility of knowledge. Agnostics don't have to believe anything. their only claim is "whether I believe this or not, it can't be proven." And those who demand precision about the 'atheist' label should be consistent and make the same demand about the 'agnostic' one. By the way, if 'theist' and 'atheist' are both ends of a one-dimensional spectrum, and 'agnostic' is used for the fence-sitters in the middle, can someone at least tell me where the 'gnostic' is supposed to fit?

which is equally contradictory, and self negating

In all fairness, you'd have to admit the contradictory and self-negating nature you assign to God actually belongs to the Bible. Similarly, Plutarch's biographies of ancient men aren't 100% accurate and sometimes give us a distorted view of their subjects, but these flaws are not these subjects' responsibility.

By the way, I've always found it counterintuitive that people automatically assume that the Bible is an accurate account prior to debating the possibilty or impossibility of God, while the Bible is known to be contradictory and inconsistent, and logic dictates that from an unreliable source, you can't deduce anything about its subject. Except that the source can't be a reliable depiction of its subject. From there, lacking other sources, the best you can do is to apply the null hypothesis: either assume that the subject doesn't exist, or accept that you can't know anything about it.

Comment by Doug Reardon on August 2, 2010 at 12:23pm

Einstein's definition of god was: those laws by which the universe works. No being, no creator. That, to me is so vague, and there do seem to be "laws" by which the universe operates. And I personally cannot think of any definition of god, in the more traditional sense that is possible, that at some point is not self contradictory.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page