Gnostic or Agnostic Atheism

[The Sum of Awe]

For some time, I’ve considered myself an agnostic atheist merely because I can’t prove that god doesn’t exist. However, I find the idea of a personal god preposterous; the likelihood of a personal god must be worse than Russell’s teapot.

A deist god on the other hand, well, I’m more circumspect. My take is that it’s a useless hypothesis that explains nothing, but it seems vaguely plausible to me that future discoveries in cosmology and physics may indicate that the universe really did “appear out of nothing” in some meaningful sense. In other words, it seems plausible to me that we might be able to prove scientifically that the universe as we know it could not exist without some “external” cause, e.g. a knob twiddler, in which case that cause could be reasonably identified with the deist’s God.

So, in retrospect, would an agnostic atheist also accept the possibility of a personal God, or can an agnostic atheist just find the God of deism possible and absolutely no on the personal God?

 

[Student of X]

However, I find the idea of a personal god preposterous; the likelihood of a personal god must be worse than Russell’s teapot.

Maybe your idea of a personal god needs to be expanded. For that I recommend you head to Peru for an Ayahuasca ceremony asap.

Ayahuasca - National Geographic Adventure Magazine

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Maybe your idea of a personal god needs to be expanded. For that I recommend you head to Peru for an Ayahuasca ceremony asap.

Ayahuasca - National Geographic Adventure Magazine

Why does it need to be expanded, do you think?

 

[Student of X]

Why does it need to be expanded, do you think?

You'll see when you drink the Ayahuaca. aka the red pill.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You'll see when you drink the Ayahuaca. aka the red pill.

Alright, I read it, but I don't see why drugs = reality.

 

[Student of X]

Alright, I read it, but I don't see why drugs = reality.

You'll see why when you take the red pill.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You'll see why when you take the red pill.

Meh, it's like a guy giving another guy DMT and saying this is proof of the soul, because you feel like the soul leaves your body when you take this.

 

[Student of X]

Why, have you tried DMT?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Why, have you tried DMT?

Can't say I have, although I know people that have.

 

[Wakeup]

For some time, I’ve considered myself an agnostic atheist merely because I can’t prove that god doesn’t exist. However, I find the idea of a personal god preposterous; the likelihood of a personal god must be worse than Russell’s teapot.

A deist god on the other hand, well, I’m more circumspect. My take is that it’s a useless hypothesis that explains nothing, but it seems vaguely plausible to me that future discoveries in cosmology and physics may indicate that the universe really did “appear out of nothing” in some meaningful sense. In other words, it seems plausible to me that we might be able to prove scientifically that the universe as we know it could not exist without some “external” cause, e.g. a knob twiddler, in which case that cause could be reasonably identified with the deist’s God.

So, in retrospect, would an agnostic atheist also accept the possibility of a personal God, or can an agnostic atheist just find the God of deism possible and absolutely no on the personal God?

You would accept the possibility of both, just as you would accept the possibility of a teapot floating in space between earth and mars thats too small to be observed. However, you would accept deism more because it's more plausible than an intervening God. I don't know if I understand what your saying, are you trying to completely rule out the possibility of a personal god?

 

[Falvlun]

The way I interpret agnosticism, it means that you aren't claiming anything for certain: You aren't fully ruling out the possibility. The probability of existence you might assign to a personal god could be 0.06%, but it's still not 0.00%.

So, if you wanted, you could stay agnostic regarding both; the only difference would be how probable you find both hypotheses.

If, however, you want to claim that the probability of the existence of a personal god to be 0.00%, then that, imo, is a gnostic claim. You are gnostic in regards to a personal god. Agnostic in regards to a deist sort of god. That being the case, it might just be easier for you not to add the (a)gnostic bit to your atheism, and if someone asks, just say that it depends on what sort of god they're talking about.

 

[idav]

For some time, I’ve considered myself an agnostic atheist merely because I can’t prove that god doesn’t exist. However, I find the idea of a personal god preposterous; the likelihood of a personal god must be worse than Russell’s teapot.

A deist god on the other hand, well, I’m more circumspect. My take is that it’s a useless hypothesis that explains nothing, but it seems vaguely plausible to me that future discoveries in cosmology and physics may indicate that the universe really did “appear out of nothing” in some meaningful sense. In other words, it seems plausible to me that we might be able to prove scientifically that the universe as we know it could not exist without some “external” cause, e.g. a knob twiddler, in which case that cause could be reasonably identified with the deist’s God.

So, in retrospect, would an agnostic atheist also accept the possibility of a personal God, or can an agnostic atheist just find the God of deism possible and absolutely no on the personal God?

An agnostic could leave the possibility open this is true. However as soon as you put atheism into the mix you are claiming a belief based on greatest probability. So I see it as saying that even though a deist god is probable you still believe that existence came from nothing ie 'no god'.

The way I interpret agnosticism, it means that you aren't claiming anything for certain: You aren't fully ruling out the possibility. The probability of existence you might assign to a personal god could be 0.06%, but it's still not 0.00%.

So, if you wanted, you could stay agnostic regarding both; the only difference would be how probable you find both hypotheses.

If, however, you want to claim that the probability of the existence of a personal god to be 0.00%, then that, imo, is a gnostic claim. You are gnostic in regards to a personal god. Agnostic in regards to a deist sort of god. That being the case, it might just be easier for you not to add the (a)gnostic bit to your atheism, and if someone asks, just say that it depends on what sort of god they're talking about.

This is why someone coined the term ignosticism.

 

[gnomon]

For some time, I’ve considered myself an agnostic atheist merely because I can’t prove that god doesn’t exist. However, I find the idea of a personal god preposterous; the likelihood of a personal god must be worse than Russell’s teapot.

A deist god on the other hand, well, I’m more circumspect. My take is that it’s a useless hypothesis that explains nothing, but it seems vaguely plausible to me that future discoveries in cosmology and physics may indicate that the universe really did “appear out of nothing” in some meaningful sense. In other words, it seems plausible to me that we might be able to prove scientifically that the universe as we know it could not exist without some “external” cause, e.g. a knob twiddler, in which case that cause could be reasonably identified with the deist’s God.

So, in retrospect, would an agnostic atheist also accept the possibility of a personal God, or can an agnostic atheist just find the God of deism possible and absolutely no on the personal God?

I prefer the "god is irrelevant" form of atheism myself. Most people probably call it apatheism. The philosophical term would be pragmatism.