Agnostic, in the meaning that Huxley used when he introduced the concept to the modern philosophy. I.e. not "not knowing about the existence of god" but "not knowing about the existence or nature".
I have no problem with that language at all. In fact, I believe I used it either in my response to your or Evangelical Humanist, that the theological question is about the existence or nature of the divine or God. Nature is a fine word. The fact that God or that nature of the divine is what one has to look at in order to say, "I don't know about that".
What is "that"? It's the concept of what God is. And that concept, is a theological perspective, or belief. It is the theological view of God that they are familiar with as defined by traditional Western Christianity, that they don't know about. And the atheist, disbelieves in. Right?
That's rich. Talking about knowability and not wanting to share your knowledge and so hiding it from critique. That is against science.
I'm not hiding anything at all. Just ask me to share how I think about the divine. Happy to. But what on earth does any of that have to do with hiding from scientific critique? Which branch of the sciences are you planning to look at this through, exactly? I'm happy to look at it through that set of eyes too, if it has any value. But it's probably I like like asking me to scientifically critique the taste of an orange to me.
But I won't hold that against you. I applaud your position, in part as it has also been known as agnosticism in the ancient world. But mainly because you can't draw any conclusions from it.
I wouldn't describe myself as an agnostic. I very much believe in the reality of the divine. It's very much a part of how I relate to myself, others, and the world. But it's not a belief in some wholly separate "being", or entity outside our reality. It's much more 'here and now' in everything that is.
Basically, I see everything as an expression of this 'all-encompassing (?)" for lack of any real word to describe this, that is the foundational essence of all reality, the "Ground of Being" as some have called it, and that all that is arises from this, and is this in form. That makes you and me expressions of that fundamental reality, in however mentally one could hope to conceive of that. To experience that, is really the only way to know the truth or reality of this. It is seeing what is there the whole time in all that is, but never seen previously. It is a perceptual shift that allows seeing what was already there. And if you want to see what's there, you have to shift that perceptual awareness, experientially. There is no doubt to its reality, to those who see it, just like there is no doubt I have feet attached the end of my legs.
Now, I'm really not sure what you think science can poke a hole into with that, as everything that science examines, is that.
It's just that that's not a "scientific" way to talk about it. That's something beyond science. It's the domain of the artist and poet and mystic. It's experiential, tasting the fabric of existence with the tongue. It's energy. It's life itself. It's existence itself.
That to me, I call God, and all the rest are just a refraction of that light hitting our mental, conceptual realities inside our thought worlds. Hence why I said before, it's the filters you see through that gives you your understanding of what God is. It's not something that is apprehended, through experience. It's conceptual in nature for most, and trying to see God looking through the conceptual frameworks of the mind, is like tying to see the eye you are looking out of with itself.
Without a mirror held to your face, you cannot see the eye you are looking out of. You cannot see that God is a concept to you, because you are using a concept to see with. Once you open to seeing without that, then truth can enter in. This is true of anything in life. We aren't seeing reality. We are seeing our ideas of reality.
Because I asked. Look into the archive. There must be several OPs about the nature of god. I did several on the old platform I was on. I had many RL discussions.
I have talked with quite a few folks on this forum who share my views, and that is reflective of the larger reality of various schools of thought on this in the world. Once you enter into Eastern thought, you'll find quite of a lot of overlap and agreement with how I believe and they do. So, that they may not all respond to your threads asking about it, or maybe I'm the only one who has, doesn't change that reality. There are a lot of people who believe as I do, basically.
And here we are again. I said you don't understand the Agnostic position and this is another example of that. And you have to tell me what I have to think in order to remain ignorant.
I know what agnosticism is. You look at what is told you what God is, and you don't see a reason to believe it. Or any number of variants upon that theme. Agnosticism, in all it's shades, is still aware of what God means conceptually. Otherwise, why in the hell call yourself agnostic? That's about God specifically.
