Agnostic Theism

[IndigoChild5559]

Are there any other Agnostic Theists around? I'd like to meet you. And for those of you that are not, what do you think of Agnostic Theism?

I originally wrote the following in another post to reply to an individual's question. I would like to paste it here because it really does a good job of explaining how I see things. We can start with YES, I do believe in God, the Creator and source underlying the universe. But now it gets more complicated.

*******

First, I don't KNOW for SURE that there is a God. God is a belief I have. Not knowledge. God can be neither proven nor disproven.

In the absence of any actual evidence one way or the other, what am I to do? Clearly I have to make some kind of choice, to either live my life as though God exists or to live it as though he does not. In such a case, I choose to go with my intuition.

Intuition is not the same as evidence. It works well enough that it increases our survival. But intuition is often wrong.

When I look at the awe of nature, I am really really moved. I contemplate the stars. I look up to the distant top of a sequoia tree. I give birth to a baby. And every fiber of my being shouts "God." For me, the design implies a designer. I INTUIT agency behind the universe, and I intuit it very strongly.

But I am simultaneously aware of just how often humans intuit agency when no agency is present.

Think of being out in the woods and a bush rustles. You think "wild animal!" and run away. Now let's say your intuition was incorrect, and it was just a branch falling. NO HARM DONE. But what about the flip? What if there were a rustling in the bushes, and you said to yourself, "Don't overreact, it's nothing" and it was in fact a wild beast? Well, you'd be toast.

So I have a very healthy respect for intuition. I just don't confuse it with evidence. If I had actual evidence that contradicted my intuition, I would go with the evidence. But I don't. So I feel free to let my intuition do its thing.

This is a form of what is called "Agnostic Theism."

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Hmmm.

I'm agnostic in that I think it impossible for humans (or maybe any similar sentient beings) to say anything meaningful about an omnimax deity, or even any deity/entity that is a substantial fraction of an omnimax deity.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in deity. I recognize that others do believe or disbelieve. But even if there is evidence for a deity or deities, I'm not certain that we can make any meaningful conclusions based on that evidence.

So, if you want to believe in something we can't possibly hope to understand, that's fine with me. But I'll neither believe nor disbelieve in it.

 

[danieldemol]

Are there any other Agnostic Theists around? I'd like to meet you. And for those of you that are not, what do you think of Agnostic Theism?

I originally wrote the following in another post to reply to an individual's question. I would like to paste it here because it really does a good job of explaining how I see things. We can start with YES, I do believe in God, the Creator and source underlying the universe. But now it gets more complicated.

*******

First, I don't KNOW for SURE that there is a God. God is a belief I have. Not knowledge. God can be neither proven nor disproven.

In the absence of any actual evidence one way or the other, what am I to do? Clearly I have to make some kind of choice, to either live my life as though God exists or to live it as though he does not. In such a case, I choose to go with my intuition.

Intuition is not the same as evidence. It works well enough that it increases our survival. But intuition is often wrong.

When I look at the awe of nature, I am really really moved. I contemplate the stars. I look up to the distant top of a sequoia tree. I give birth to a baby. And every fiber of my being shouts "God." For me, the design implies a designer. I INTUIT agency behind the universe, and I intuit it very strongly.

But I am simultaneously aware of just how often humans intuit agency when no agency is present.

Think of being out in the woods and a bush rustles. You think "wild animal!" and run away. Now let's say your intuition was incorrect, and it was just a branch falling. NO HARM DONE. But what about the flip? What if there were a rustling in the bushes, and you said to yourself, "Don't overreact, it's nothing" and it was in fact a wild beast? Well, you'd be toast.

So I have a very healthy respect for intuition. I just don't confuse it with evidence. If I had actual evidence that contradicted my intuition, I would go with the evidence. But I don't. So I feel free to let my intuition do its thing.

This is a form of what is called "Agnostic Theism."

I consider myself a part of agnostic theism because although I see no evidence or logical reason to believe in a God there is a sort of feeling there that there is one that I haven't managed to shake in spite of my critical analysis of the concept.

Not sure what this has to do with science though, just saying.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I consider myself a part of agnostic theism because although I see no evidence or logical reason to believe in a God there is a sort of feeling there that there is one that I haven't managed to shake in spite of my critical analysis of the concept.

Not sure what this has to do with science though, just saying.

I suppose I put it in this forum here, because of my premise that only science and reason provide evidence. If the mods decide there is a different forum where it is more appropriate, I'm fine with that.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

What kind of evidence would be sufficient to demonstrate the presence or absence of a universal omnimax deity, as opposed to a deity that has a similar kind of omni nature but only has that power over a billion galaxies, or only over 100 galaxies, or one galaxy, or over hundreds of millions of stars, or one star, or one planet? Or indeed, a deity with even more limited powers?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What kind of evidence would be sufficient to demonstrate the presence or absence of a universal omnimax deity, as opposed to a deity that has a similar kind of omni nature but only has that power over a billion galaxies, or only over 100 galaxies, or one galaxy, or over hundreds of millions of stars, or one star, or one planet? Or indeed, a deity with even more limited powers?

1. I think it is impossible for science to EVER prove God, the reason being that the purview of science is ONLY the natural world. Any scientific evidence you might suggest as proving God would inevitably make God into a natural creature, meaning that he is no longer God.
2. Theoretically it is possible that someone may some day come up with a perfectly logical proof of God. But since it does not exist at this time, I would have no way of knowing what it would be. Certainly all the logical arguments we have today each have problems with the logic, rendering them ineffective as proofs.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I consider myself a part of agnostic theism because although I see no evidence or logical reason to believe in a God there is a sort of feeling there that there is one that I haven't managed to shake in spite of my critical analysis of the concept.

Not sure what this has to do with science though, just saying.

Interesting. I would say I have almost the exact opposite perspective at this point. I think it would be great to have faith in a god and have some hope for something beyond this life but I have a gut feeling that there is no god. I've been agnostic for a long time but have leaned more toward atheism the older I get. However, I could be persuaded that Pascals Wager is a good enough reason to practice religion as I mentioned in another thread.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

1. I think it is impossible for science to EVER prove God, the reason being that the purview of science is ONLY the natural world. Any scientific evidence you might suggest as proving God would inevitably make God into a natural creature, meaning that he is no longer God.
2. Theoretically it is possible that someone may some day come up with a perfectly logical proof of God. But since it does not exist at this time, I would have no way of knowing what it would be. Certainly all the logical arguments we have today each have problems with the logic, rendering them ineffective as proofs.

I'm not asking about PROVING God, I'm asking about whether it is possible to have evidence in favor or against any sort of entity that might be classified as a deity. So, you are making the ontological assertion that ANY deity is supernatural, and therefore outside the purview of science. And, that any entity/deity that has any effect whatsoever on the natural world is not by definition God, even if it has some supernatural properties that science can't access or comment on?

It seems to me that you're having definitional issues...or at least I'm having such issues with what you're saying...

 

[Twilight Hue]

1. I think it is impossible for science to EVER prove God, the reason being that the purview of science is ONLY the natural world. Any scientific evidence you might suggest as proving God would inevitably make God into a natural creature, meaning that he is no longer God.
2. Theoretically it is possible that someone may some day come up with a perfectly logical proof of God. But since it does not exist at this time, I would have no way of knowing what it would be. Certainly all the logical arguments we have today each have problems with the logic, rendering them ineffective as proofs.

According to Dawkins the question of God is certainly approachable using science because it's a yes or no question.

Either there is a God , or there isn't any God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are there any other Agnostic Theists around?

An agnostic theist is simply a theist smart enough to know what s/he does not know and honest enough to admit it.

 

[danieldemol]

However, I could be persuaded that Pascals Wager is a good enough reason to practice religion as I mentioned in another thread.

I'm pretty much the opposite on pascals wager to be honest, the chances of practising the wrong religion are so great as to make it a worthless wager - that and that a God would presumably know of my insincerity.

I also think that bowing to a tyrant may be practical to some, but perhaps its just not in my nature and pascals wager is founded on the threat of tyranny as I see it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

According to Dawkins the question of God is certainly approachable using science because it's a yes or no question.

So all yes or no questions are approachable by science? Seriously?

 

[Twilight Hue]

So all yes or no questions are approachable by science? Seriously?

According to Dawkins it is an approachable query.

Either there is a God , or there isn't
a God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

An agnostic theist is simply a theist smart enough to know what s/he does not know and honest enough to admit it.

Wow, what a nice thing for you to say. Thank you, my friend.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Interesting. I would say I have almost the exact opposite perspective at this point. I think it would be great to have faith in a god and have some hope for something beyond this life but I have a gut feeling that there is no god. I've been agnostic for a long time but have leaned more toward atheism the older I get. However, I could be persuaded that Pascals Wager is a good enough reason to practice religion as I mentioned in another thread.

Yes, I understand perfectly that some people have an intuition that is the opposite of mine. I do not look down on atheists.

 

[Quintessence]

An agnostic theist is simply a theist smart enough to know what s/he does not know and honest enough to admit it.

Alternatively, an agnostic theist is simply a theist who is dumb enough to not take their own power and knowledge seriously.

Let's be real here for a second - it goes without saying that humans are not omniscient and therefore there are limitations on human knowledge.

However, it does not follow from there that humans must therefore deny the validity of their knowledge and gaslight themselves. If you had an experience, you had an experience. Instead of abdicating the power and responsibility to decide what that means and remaining noncommittal, practice discernment. Trust in yourself. Respect your own power and knowledge instead of throwing it away. Wielding that power, it's not as if you can't change your mind about something later.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Alternatively, an agnostic theist is simply a theist who is dumb enough to not take their own power and knowledge seriously.

That's a rather childish ad hominem.

 

[Quintessence]

That's a rather childish ad hominem.

Not really - the words were chosen to parallel the presumptions made by your own. Either you didn't notice that or don't care.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Alternatively, an agnostic theist is simply a theist who is dumb enough to not take their own power and knowledge seriously.

Let's be real here for a second - it goes without saying that humans are not omniscient and therefore there are limitations on human knowledge.

However, it does not follow from there that humans must therefore deny the validity of their knowledge and gaslight themselves. If you had an experience, you had an experience. Instead of abdicating the power and responsibility to decide what that means and remaining noncommittal, practice discernment. Trust in yourself. Respect your own power and knowledge instead of throwing it away. Wielding that power, it's not as if you can't change your mind about something later.

Why do you think a subjective religious experience should be considered certain knowledge?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

However, it does not follow from there that humans must therefore deny the validity of their knowledge and gaslight themselves.

It has always seemed to me that having the knowledge that one DOES make mistakes, and that any belief you have may turn out to be false, is a mark of maturity, humility, integrity, and honesty. I really don't much respect people who are so convinced they are right that they loose the capacity to listen to others.