Agnosticism and spirituality at the same time.

[an anarchist]

I grew up thinking agnosticism was the idea that you didn’t believe in God or disbelieve in God. Then some fine folk on this site corrected me. Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to come to a conclusion of God’s existence.

By that updated definition, I am agnostic. I have opinions on the topic of God, sure. I’ve even seen God face to face and have had a chat with God. Enlightening indeed indeed. But I do not put much weight on that encounter. All I am left with is the impression and conclusion that perception is fallible and questionable. I bet many people would have undying faith if they met God. That experience used to fuel my zealous faith and I would make definitive statements on God’s existence. But I have moved past that and realize that my perception is fallible.

I feel I can comfortably identify as agnostic. I’ve met God, and I don’t give that any weight. I still am of the opinion that the existence of God can only be inconclusive.

But yet, I am spiritual. I meditate and pray. I don’t pray to emptiness and thin air mind you, my prayers are directed at entities I believe and suppose to exist. But ultimately this belief is secondary. Not because my personal belief isn’t important to my spiritual practices, but rather the bliss and serenity I attain from spiritual practice leaves no room for doubt to enter my mind.

So I declare to the interwebs that I am an AGNOSTIC SPIRTUALIST.

I act without focusing on belief. I think there is some wisdom in this and I wanted to share.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I grew up thinking agnosticism was the idea that you didn’t believe in God or disbelieve in God. Then some fine folk on this site corrected me. Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to come to a conclusion of God’s existence.

No, it is not. It may be impossible to come to a conclusion that you find warranted, but there are, and have been, an inordinate number of extremely well informed and thoughtful people who have arrived at a conclusion nonetheless. (E. O. Wilson is an interesting case in point.)

More to the point, agnosticism is variously defined. I tend to use it in the way intended by Huxley, but I find the following interesting:

Nowadays, the term “agnostic” is often used (when the issue is God’s existence) to refer to those who follow the recommendation expressed in the conclusion of Huxley’s argument: an agnostic is a person who has entertained the proposition that there is a God but believes neither that it is true nor that it is false. Not surprisingly, then, the term “agnosticism” is often defined, both in and outside of philosophy, not as a principle or any other sort of proposition but instead as the psychological state of being an agnostic. Call this the “psychological” sense of the term. It is certainly useful to have a term to refer to people who are neither theists nor atheists, but philosophers might wish that some other term besides “agnostic” (“theological skeptic”, perhaps?) were used. The problem is that it is also very useful for philosophical purposes to have a name for the epistemological position that follows from the premise of Huxley’s argument, the position that neither theism nor atheism is known, or most ambitiously, that neither the belief that God exists nor the belief that God does not exist has positive epistemic status of any sort. Just as the metaphysical question of God’s existence is central to philosophy of religion, so too is the epistemological question of whether or not theism or atheism is known or has some other sort of positive epistemic status like being justified, rational, reasonable, or probable. And given the etymology of “agnostic”, what better term could there be for a negative answer to that epistemological question than “agnosticism”? Further, as suggested earlier, it is, for very good reason, typical in philosophy to use the suffix “-ism” to refer to a proposition instead of to a state or condition, since only the former can sensibly be tested by argument. [source]​

 

[wellwisher]

Most classic religions, in a sense, attempt to stay consistent with an extroverted view of reality, that even science teaches. Science is about exploring reality with the fives sense and testing theory with experiences outside the body. Many religions tend to place God, outside the body, as separate ethereal entities. Both are assumed outside; physical and spiritual reality.

Agnostic is different in that it is more about the inner man; inner reality, that is experienced from the inside; dreams and visions. However, this may not be sharable and transferable by language or the five sense, since unlike the five senses, it involves extra inner senses. Often this source of data is formless, since one is not trying to project it outward, to make it more Main Street; externally acceptable, since the proof is in the experiences of this inner data.

My approach to Agnosticism was more connected to science and the psychology of Carl Jung. There is a higher brain power; inner self, which is the genetic center of human consciousness. It is separate from the ego. The experiences are real, but are not common to external living. Therefore these experiences are more often projected, to make them more consistent the collective extroverted expectations; what is real is only outside us, on earth and in other realms. But the Agnostic, does not try to attach it to an external projection, but rather lives by the experiences that come from the inside that prove the concept.

This is not to say that religions, meditations, prayer and projections are not useful and helpful. These are how many can come to a focus and trigger the same experiences as the Agnostic. The old system are like tools that can shape these experiences.

The philosophy of science is bound to the ego; external sensory, and it can not yet make use of the inner self, until it comes to understand that the number one tool of science is consciousness, and you can not fully calibrate consciousness, without help of the inner self. The inner self as a natural center of the genetic brain, evolved over eons based on physical reality; natural selection. Without that, you end up with rational polytheism; many theories, instead of rational monotheism; one reality that can encompass the rest.

 

[dybmh]

the bliss and serenity I attain from spiritual practice leaves no room for doubt to enter my mind.

" ... from [ my ] spiritual practice... "

It's like walking the perimeter of a garden without entering it. The garden is unknown, but, it exists, is significant, and cannot be denied.

 

[an anarchist]

It's like walking the perimeter of a garden without entering it. The garden is unknown, but, it exists, is significant, and cannot be denied.

The spiritualist and the atheist both enjoy the fragrance and that is what cannot be denied in my opinion. Not to turn this into a debate or anything tho

 

[Heyo]

More to the point, agnosticism is variously defined. I tend to use it in the way intended by Huxley, but I find the following interesting:

Yep. Just to add to the list of definitions, mine is:

An Agnostic believes that the existence or nature of god(s) isn't (soft) or can't (hard) be known.

Most people, even agnostics, ignore, or don't understand, the importance of the "or nature" part. I.e. even if we postulate the existence of god(s), we have no way to empirically or logically determine the attributes of that entity.