Aren't we all agnostic?

[Deidre]

I consider my 'beliefs' to be atheistic, in terms of believing in the existence of a deity/deities, because there is no proof. But, I'm open to the possibilities that could lurk beyond the surface. My question is, aren't we all agnostic, for none of us has knowledge if a god exists or not? None of us can prove or disprove the existence of a deity, yes?

What do you think? I wrestle with this from time to time.

 

[Father Heathen]

Over the years, any sense of certainty regarding our infinitely vast and mysterious universe has come to seem a bit presumptuous and silly to me.

 

[1137]

Most people aren't agnostic, actually. It's a very difficult path to consistently follow. Naturally we tend to believe something one way or another, and once we lean even slightly one way we are no longer agnostics.

 

[Deidre]

Over the years, any sense of certainty regarding our infinitely vast and mysterious universe has come to seem a bit presumptuous and silly to me.

I like this, well stated. I'm certain that I'm uncertain. lol But, I can choose to not believe in the vast variety of religions floating about, and the existence of a deity, because there is no proof of one. But, the knowledge. That is what lacks in us all. Together, we're all in that same boat, I think.

Most people aren't agnostic, actually. It's a very difficult path to consistently follow. Naturally we tend to believe something one way or another, and once we lean even slightly one way we are no longer agnostics.

Well, agnosticism is about not being able to prove or disprove that a god/gods exist. Not necessarily relating to belief. You can choose to not believe in a deity, yet admit that you are not certain that one doesn't exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would say that it all falls down to how significant your agnostic stance is on your overall stance of faith.

 

[Deidre]

I would say that it all falls down to how significant your agnostic stance is on your overall stance of faith.

But, isn't it true that none of us...not a one...can prove or disprove in the existence of a supernatural power of some kind? I may choose to not believe it, even when religious people offer me their ideas of proof, but it still goes to show that none of us can say a god exists/a god does not exist...with pure certainty. Do you think so, Luis?

 

[Father Heathen]

I like this, well stated. I'm certain that I'm uncertain. lol But, I can choose to not believe in the vast variety of religions floating about, and the existence of a deity, because there is no proof of one. But, the knowledge. That is what lacks in us all. Together, we're all in that same boat, I think.

All we can do is be honest and rational and base our beliefs on what evidence is currently available, while accepting the fact that our picture of the world may very well change as we gain further knowledge and understanding of it.

 

[LuisDantas]

But, isn't it true that none of us...not a one...can prove or disprove in the existence of a supernatural power of some kind?

Yes, it is certainly true. But it just isn't always significant. Quite on the contrary, it is often very much irrelevant.

I may choose to not believe it, even when religious people offer me their ideas of proof,

Do you then? I do not. I don't think it is something certain people can choose to do.

but it still goes to show that none of us can say a god exists/a god does not exist...with pure certainty. Do you think so, Luis?

I am not even sure that I still consider myself an agnostic, Deidre, except in the most technical of senses.

My current understanding is that god conceptions are simply too varied, too arbitrary, and ultimately too vague - particularly when used in contexts that insist that it is significant to decide whether one believes in their existence or not - for most anything that directly relates to matters of belief in their existence to be worth a lot of worry.

So, sure, I can't have complete certainty that there is no god. But that is simply not at all important, because it is so very unclear whether a god's existence would even mean anything, let alone what. Russell's Teapot and all that.

But if you disagree, if you think that it is noteworthy (as opposed to simply accurate and true) that we can't tell categorically one way or the other, then I would say that you qualify as an agnostic in a sense that I do not, not anymore.

 

[Deidre]

@Father Heathen - that is beautiful.

@LuisDantas - I appreciate your reply because it helps me process it all a bit differently. It seems you are of the opinion that we can have knowledge based on evidence or lack thereof, as to whether a deity exists or not. I'm reading between the lines a little. I'd say that it doesn't matter if a deity exists or not. Having to know, needing to know...doesn't interest me as it did when I was a theist. Maybe agnosticism is unnecessary then, you're saying? (in other words)

 

[wizanda]

My question is, aren't we all agnostic, for none of us has knowledge if a god exists or not? None of us can prove or disprove the existence of a deity, yes?

Nope, I'm an Irreligious Gnostic, fulfilling Biblical prophecy; just don't really care to prove the basics of if God exists, when there are more complicated matters to explain.

 

[LuisDantas]

@LuisDantas - I appreciate your reply because it helps me process it all a bit differently. It seems you are of the opinion that we can have knowledge based on evidence or lack thereof, as to whether a deity exists or not.

You're welcome, and correct. But more significant than that IMO is that it is often possible to also determine whether how much, if at all, a given deity's existence is important and/or ambiguous - and to me at least the evidence suggests that often if not always the answers depend on the believer, not on the deity.

So, in short, a deity's existence seems to be exactly as important as people want to believe it to be, and possibly no more than that.

I'm reading between the lines a little. I'd say that it doesn't matter if a deity exists or not. Having to know, needing to know...doesn't interest me as it did when I was a theist. Maybe agnosticism is unnecessary then, you're saying? (in other words)

On the contrary. Agnosticism is very much necessary - and one of the logical pillars of political secularism, which I greatly value. It just isn't very significant from a personal perspective for most people, to the point that many atheists tend to disregard it as "uncommited atheism".

I suspect that most people are literally incapable of sustaining a consistent agnostic perspective. Our brains and mental processes are not well suited to confortably maintain doubt.

But beyond that, I also think that while impossible to prove wrong, a true agnostic stance is not particularly crucial in any practical sense. There is considerable anthropological evidence that beliefs about deities existence are actually fairly malleable and maintained to a large measure by social reinforcement (Christian anthropologists often find themselves effectively suspending their disbeliefs of local myths for the duration of their missions).

I am personally convinced that, perhaps counter-intuitively, it is in fact not at all important to know whether any literal gods exist. All practical aspects of the matter seem to be connected not to the matter of their existence proper but rather to what the beliefs regarding them are.

 

[Laika]

I consider my 'beliefs' to be atheistic, in terms of believing in the existence of a deity/deities, because there is no proof. But, I'm open to the possibilities that could lurk beyond the surface. My question is, aren't we all agnostic, for none of us has knowledge if a god exists or not? None of us can prove or disprove the existence of a deity, yes?

What do you think? I wrestle with this from time to time.

But, isn't it true that none of us...not a one...can prove or disprove in the existence of a supernatural power of some kind? I may choose to not believe it, even when religious people offer me their ideas of proof, but it still goes to show that none of us can say a god exists/a god does not exist...with pure certainty.

I disagree, but it is a peculair feature of materialism. Atheism can be demonstrated to be true if someone can prove materialism is actually true. it logically follows on from it. If someone can demonstrate that consciousness cannot exist in seperation from matter and is the result of natural phenemeona, and that the brain and the mind are the same- it would mean it is impossible for god to exist as a form of disembodied consciousness and eliminate the dualism of spiritual and material worlds. Atheism could therefore be demonstrated to be objectively true and religion would be an illusion irrespective of whether a person believes it or not.

That would be a "sufficient" level of proof but because it involves so many physical questions about the nature of reality and what can be proven, it is a scientific heresy though was much more popular in the 19th century but has fallen out of fashion for large number of reasons.You often here theists refer to "scientific materialism" or "scientific atheism" and equating science/atheism/materialism but this applies only to a rather limited case and is not part of mainstream scientific thinking as it stands today.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agnosticism is easy, as is atheism.
I believe there are no gods, but I cannot be certain, therefore I don't know.
(Tis a speculative position.)
Thus I can be both.

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree, but it is a peculair feature of materialism. Atheism can be demonstrated to be true if someone can prove materialism is actually true. it logically follows on from it. If someone can demonstrate that consciousness cannot exist in seperation from matter and is the result of natural phenemeona, and that the brain and the mind are the same- it would mean it is impossible for god to exist as a form of disembodied consciousness and eliminate the dualism of spiritual and material worlds. Atheism could therefore be demonstrated to be objectively true and religion would be an illusion irrespective of whether a person believes it or not.

That would be a "sufficient" level of proof but because it involves so many physical questions about the nature of reality and what can be proven, it is a scientific heresy though was much more popular in the 19th century but has fallen out of fashion for large number of reasons.You often here theists refer to "scientific materialism" or "scientific atheism" and equating science/atheism/materialism but this applies only to a rather limited case and is not part of mainstream scientific thinking as it stands today.

Applying the scientific method doesn't allow us to "prove" materialism (or the more modern physicalism), ie, that there exists only that which we can detect.
As we see throughout history, we regularly discover very strange things which we never suspected to exist.
So we can't ever know that we know all that can be known.

 

[Mycroft]

I consider my 'beliefs' to be atheistic, in terms of believing in the existence of a deity/deities, because there is no proof. But, I'm open to the possibilities that could lurk beyond the surface. My question is, aren't we all agnostic, for none of us has knowledge if a god exists or not? None of us can prove or disprove the existence of a deity, yes?

What do you think? I wrestle with this from time to time.

I'm pure atheist.

Agnostics admit the 'possibility' of a god, despite the lack of evidence.

However, it is my determination that there is no divine being in the universe. I am certain that the god of any of the religions of man does not exist, that is pretty self-evident. And I am also certain that if something like god were ever discovered, then it would merely be an alien who was better at maths than we are. It may appear divine, and appear to conduct magic, but it would merely be an alien using alien science.

I am, therefore, Atheist.

 

[idav]

I consider my 'beliefs' to be atheistic, in terms of believing in the existence of a deity/deities, because there is no proof. But, I'm open to the possibilities that could lurk beyond the surface. My question is, aren't we all agnostic, for none of us has knowledge if a god exists or not? None of us can prove or disprove the existence of a deity, yes?

What do you think? I wrestle with this from time to time.

Yes everyone is agnostic/gnostic of different degrees based on knowledge. Belief is thinking we know something and it doesn't necessarily need all the facts, may make assumptions on faith in order to make the decision of whatever the belief is and it becomes justified belief.

 

[Laika]

Applying the scientific method doesn't allow us to "prove" materialism (or the more modern physicalism), ie, that there exists only that which we can detect.
As we see throughout history, we regularly discover very strange things which we never suspected to exist.
So we can't ever know that we know all that can be known.

if that one proposition holds true that consciousness arises only for natural phenemeona, it means there is no dualism between the spiritual and the material. Therefore everything that exists would obey natural laws and that eliminates the god of the gaps. whilst we don't know what those laws are, we can be (reasonably) sure they exist. but as its so intimately connected between philosophy and science, the idea of "proof" for materialism is tricky as (I think) our current understanding of science comes from Descartes Dualism that "I think therefore I am" whereas materialism is the reverse (I am therefore I think).

 

[Revoltingest]

if that one proposition holds true that consciousness arises only for natural phenemeona, it means there is no dualism between the spiritual and the material.

It wouldn't prove that intelligence couldn't exist by other means though.

Therefore everything that exists would obey natural laws and that eliminates the god of the gaps. whilst we don't know what those laws are, we can be (reasonably) sure they exist. but as its so intimately connected between philosophy and science, the idea of "proof" for materialism is tricky as (I think) our current understanding of science comes from Descartes Dualism that "I think therefore I am" whereas materialism is the reverse (I am therefore I think).

The problem with "proving" anythigng about the physical world is that we cannot test all circumstances.
There's no guarantee that surprises won't challenge whatever laws we come up with.

 

[Politesse]

I consider my 'beliefs' to be atheistic, in terms of believing in the existence of a deity/deities, because there is no proof. But, I'm open to the possibilities that could lurk beyond the surface. My question is, aren't we all agnostic, for none of us has knowledge if a god exists or not? None of us can prove or disprove the existence of a deity, yes?

What do you think? I wrestle with this from time to time.

Not everyone would agree that proof is the standard of knowing something, though. I think plenty of people believe they have knowledge of certain things, even if not everything. The mystic feels their truths, the shaman embodies their spirits, the fundamentalist trusts their books and pastors, the scientist assumes induction and material uniformitarianism. Whatever verb you want to put on it, there's some verb we do that skips right past proof to perceived knowledge. The question is whether or not this is a delusion.

(Yes, at least to a point)

 

[Laika]

It wouldn't prove that intelligence couldn't exist by other means though.

The problem with "proving" anythigng about the physical world is that we cannot test all circumstances.
There's no guarantee that surprises won't challenge whatever laws we come up with.

That's true in so far as we can't test all the circumstances, but the limitations of a theory does not necessarily make it false. We still use Newtonian Mechanics as it works for understanding the Orbits of most of the planet of the solar system. the exception is Mercury which doesn't orbit in quite the way Newtonian mechanics would suggest, but that was later explianed when Einstein theorised was affected by the sun's gravity bending space-time. Even thought it does hold for the one example, doesn't mean it loses its validity in all the contexts where it does accurately reflect what happens. So, if materialism was "true" it would be true in a sense relative to our ability to discover and reproduce phenemeona in accordance with our ideas rather than being absolutely true.