Agnostic Theism

[Quintessence]

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

I don't - that's not what I said.

I said that it goes without saying that no human knowledge is "certain" given humans are not omniscient. One of the major points of philosophy as a discipline is to slay that pointless monster of skepticism - that "alas, humans are not omniscient and always fallible therefore I can know nothing ever" - to have a way of life and living that works for oneself. Certainty is neither possible nor required for knowledge. A gnostic - one who takes ownership of their own power of knowledge and the responsibility of discernment that goes with it - understands and practices this.

Whether or not the experience is considered "religious" is not relevant. Experience is experience. Knowledge is knowledge. The absence of omniscience applies to all human knowledge and experience equally. So too does the decision to take ownership of one's power of knowledge and experience and trust in oneself and one's judgements. In general, humans have three basic approaches to how they treat their experience and knowledge:

• Trust in one's experiences and make decisions for oneself
• Trust in someone else's experiences and let an authority make decisions for oneself.
• Trust in no one and avoid decision-making or remain noncommittal.

These aren't mutually exclusive, and I'd wager each is practiced by every human often in combination with one another (aka, it is a both/and situation). Sometimes which one practices for a given topic changes over the course of one's lifetime, even. Sure did for me.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

In practice, I very rarely see this happen but maybe that's just the circles I float in at the University. It's not difficult to say with confidence and self-respect that "yes, I know this, this really happened to me" and stand by it while also listening to others and understanding that mistakes and errors happen. I'd bet money that everyone does this because one can't have a functioning worldview and life without doing this. No human gets up in the morning and wonders if their feet will touch ground when they get out of bed or if their thoughts are really happening. They trust in their senses, their power of knowledge, go about their day, and would balk at anyone suggesting that what they experience isn't what they experience.

 

[shunyadragon]

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 would consider myself an agnostic Theist. Based on what I call the Universalist (not UU) This philosophy brings every belief under the skeptic microscope including my own. My conclusion concerning the existence of God is: IF a 'Source' some call God exists God is Universal and not the cultural God of any one religion, especially ancient religions,

 

[Heyo]

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."

One of the tenets of Agnosticism (philosophical) is that one should withhold judgement if evidence is scarce. That's why an Agnostic can't be a theist. We can be atheists (colloquial), in fact we are by definition.
But the tenets of Agnosticism aren't universal truths, so I can't demand from others to hold to them.

I get the same courtesy from agnostic theists, not demanding that I hold to a tenet or law they can't show to be universal. Thus, we are compatible to live in a diverse society with mutual respect. An agnostic theist is not going to force their religious laws on me, that's all I can ask for.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

One of the tenets of Agnosticism (philosophical) is that one should withhold judgement if evidence is scarce. That's why an Agnostic can't be a theist.

Before you claim this, it would be a good idea to read the details of the opening post.

 

[Heyo]

Before you claim this, it would be a good idea to read the details of the opening post.

I have read the OP. You are using the colloquial definition of agnosticism, I'm using the philosophical (for me).

 

[PearlSeeker]

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?

Aren't most theists agnostic? They don't know (they have no direct experience) but they have faith in God - they trust their sacred books/stories about other's direct experience.

I'm also agnostic but I highly doubt the gods as conceived in religious myths are real. Actually I'm atheist regarding these conceptions of god(s) and stories. It's against my rational judgement and observations of the world.

That said, I'm into alternative conceptions and natural theology. I feel awe and I intuit something when I observe the nature, art, science... Natural theology has some convincing proofs (arguments) for a necessary being (god of the philosophers) but it's impossible to conclude what exactly it is...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Aren't most theists agnostic? They don't know (they have no direct experience) but they have faith in God - they trust their sacred books/stories about other's direct experience.

They believe they KNOW. If that's the case, then no, they are not agnostic. Personally, I suspect that agnostic theists such as myself are more common than is known. But that's just a gut feeling. I really have no evidence what percentage of theists are agnostic.

I'm also agnostic but I highly doubt the gods as conceived in religious myths are real. Actually I'm atheist regarding these conceptions of god(s) and stories. It's against my rational judgement and observations of the world.

I understand

That said, I'm into alternative conceptions and natural theology. I feel awe and I intuit something when I observe the nature, art, science... Natural theology has some convincing proofs (arguments) for a necessary being (god of the philosophers) but it's impossible to conclude what exactly it is...

I have never heard the term "natural theology" before. Could you elaborate?

 

[PearlSeeker]

I have never heard the term "natural theology" before. Could you elaborate?

Philosophers were looking for the first cause or the first principle. They derived religious truths from observing the nature and using the reason without resorting to divine revelations from God's appointed messengers.

 

[Eli G]

The proof that God exists is all around us.

The simple event of life is divine. The artistic beauty in nature is divine. Human consciousness, feelings and emotions are divine.

The Deity is seen everywhere. Just look at his creation, and then you will know a part of the Creator.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The proof that God exists is all around us.

The simple event of life is divine. The artistic beauty in nature is divine. Human consciousness, feelings and emotions are divine.

The Deity is seen everywhere. Just look at his creation, and then you will know a part of the Creator.

Let's be fair. Although I also believe in God, there are many people who simply experience the universe differently. They do not sense God's presence. They do not see divinity in the awe of nature. They have all the same facts, but reach very different conclusions.

 

[Eli G]

The Bible says:

2 Thess. 3:1 Finally, brothers, carry on prayer for us, that the word of Jehovah may keep spreading rapidly and being glorified, just as it is with you, 2 and that we may be rescued from harmful and wicked men, for faith is not a possession of all people. 3 But the Lord is faithful, and he will strengthen you and protect you from the wicked one.

It means as there are good and wicked persons, there are persons with faith and without it.
What is evidence for some, may not be evidence at all for others.
Besides that, if God exists, He may have a lot of enemies, and consequently they must be fighting very hard so that people of faith lose it, and that those who seek God cannot find Him.

What will you do to find Him?

Heb. 11:6 Moreover, without faith it is impossible to please God well, for whoever approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.

My comments are not lectures; I'm not interested in how each person wants to see things, but in some people opening their eyes and analyzing things personally, without caring if the rest do nothing. As a wise man said, writing words and discussing them has no end.

Eccl. 12:11 The words of the wise are like oxgoads, and their collected sayings are like firmly embedded nails; they have been given from one shepherd. 12 As for anything besides these, my son, be warned: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.
13 The conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is: Fear the true God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole obligation of man. 14 For the true God will judge every deed, including every hidden thing, as to whether it is good or bad.

 

[idea]

...

When I look at the awe of nature, I am really really moved....

For me, "spiritual" or "feeling the spirit" is anything that moves you - music, poetry, witness altruistic acts, nature - anything that inspires and uplifts.

"God" becomes the universe, humanity, all that is bigger. Feeling connected to anything bigger than just little insignificant me constitutes spiritual or theist? practice.

 

[Revoltingest]

For me, "spiritual" or "feeling the spirit" is anything that moves you - music, poetry, witness altruistic acts, nature - anything that inspires and uplifts.

Funny that I see your post as I'm listening to.....

 

[Pogo]

Funny that I see your post as I'm listening to.....

And I just turned off somebody yacking about Cowboy Carter.
Thank you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Aren't most theists agnostic? They don't know (they have no direct experience) but they have faith in God - they trust their sacred books/stories about other's direct experience.

No, many if not most Theists claim personal experiences confirming their belief in God, Many also claim direct evidence for the existence of God. An agnostic Theist claims no such personal or evidential basis for believing, and like myself remains skeptical but a believer.,

I'm also agnostic but I highly doubt the gods as conceived in religious myths are real. Actually I'm atheist regarding these conceptions of god(s) and stories. It's against my rational judgement and observations of the world.

I actually share this view as you presented.

That said, I'm into alternative conceptions and natural theology. I feel awe and I intuit something when I observe the nature, art, science... Natural theology has some convincing proofs (arguments) for a necessary being (god of the philosophers) but it's impossible to conclude what exactly it is...

I am not sure what you are describing is Natural Theology in Christianity. It is late and I will respond further tomorrow.

 

[Heyo]

Let's be fair. Although I also believe in God, there are many people who simply experience the universe differently. They do not sense God's presence. They do not see divinity in the awe of nature. They have all the same facts, but reach very different conclusions.

“Whoever does not see God everywhere does not see Him anywhere.” – Kotzker Rebbe

The difference in the perception is to see the causes behind the phenomena.
The atheist sees the natural causes, while for the believer, everything is a miracle.

 

[Pogo]

The difference in the perception is to see the causes behind the phenomena.
The atheist sees the natural causes, while for the believer, everything is a miracle.

Then from a scientific standpoint atheists have no problem with theists who study how these miracles are performed, but neither are impressed with the dogmatic believers in unchanging revealed knowledge.

 

[PureX]

Evidence for the existence of God is everywhere. If you can't see it, it's because you don't understand what evidence is. As a lot of people do not.

The issue is that all this evidence can be dismissed by alternative possible explanations because we humans just don't possess the intellectual and sensual scope to verify any specific possible explanation.

So we are left with a personal choice to be made. And that is where we ought to be focused. Which choice will bring us the best results? God? What kind of God? Or no gods? Trust but test? Believe blindly? Doubt and avoid? These are all possible choices that are available to us because we cannot know of (verify) the nature or existence of God.

I think these are all legitimate options within a specific circumstance and the wise person would employ them each as needed. But that's just my choice. Everyone else has to decide for themselves. And we all have to live with the consequences. So we should try and choice carefully.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The proof that God exists is all around us.

The simple event of life is divine. The artistic beauty in nature is divine. Human consciousness, feelings and emotions are divine.

The Deity is seen everywhere. Just look at his creation, and then you will know a part of the Creator.

Making bare claims and assertions does not amount to "proof". Or even just evidence.