Agnosticism

💬 15 comments

1. 

   drew · Jun 5, 2007 9:42pm

   first of all, thanks for the welcome.
   
   I always think of agnosticism as sort of the default (although for many people belief is presented to them in such a way that it becomes the default for them).
   
   In some ways, I really like agnostics, because they have an open mind, and they are humble enough to admit that they might be wrong.
   
   On the other hand, agnosticism seems in some ways to be fence sitting, if a person professes to be such a person over an extended period of time.
   
   I suspect lots of people remain agnostic, however, because saying that they do or do not believe would lead to some conclusions that we would rather avoid.
   
   Therefore, I think that believers/athiests tend to have a bit more courage. If they can state that they do/do not believe and yet still remain humble and open, then its the best of both worlds!
   
   Sadly, only a few people can do this--I like the end of Dogma, when they talk about whether they believe. I won't put it here, in case it would spoil it for somebody.
2. 

   jim · Jun 5, 2007 9:57pm

   Drew, your mention of the movie Dogma reminds me of a Buddhist concept - beginner's mind - which refers to the essential need to remain open. Maintaining a balance between putting yourself in a position to accomplish things through great determination and hardening yourself to other, perhaps better, things.
3. 

   james · Jun 5, 2007 10:07pm

   Agnosticism seems most viable in most societies. But I also find it the most troublesome.
   
   There is plenty to make a man agnostic. It can be a sensory inability to detect god, or logic and reason can take you to this point. And that is cool.
   
   Our culture has been most influenced by religion, and indeed all cultures have. I hate turkey. But I ate it for years because it is the cultural flesh of Thanksgiving and America. In the same way, people are religious because they grew up religious. They dig Christmas.
   
   Agnosticism can be, as Drew said, fence sitting. I feel as if people declare themselves Agnostic because they do not deeply examine their lives and how god may or may not fit in their.
   
   Religion, because it is so cultural and such a matter of faith, it is really easy to just throw your hands in the air and say 'I don't know' but with most other issues it just wouldn't work. Abortion? Beats me. Yankees fan? I dunno. Agnosticism is the faith of those who can't decide what to have for dinner, what shirt to wear with those pants.
   
   Of course, many people of faith who never examine their professed religion suffer from the same indecisiveness and a wonder people don't have more restless nights.
4. 

   jenks · Jun 5, 2007 11:44pm

   Yeah, I agree. I see it sort of as someone who doesn't really believe IN God, but isn't quite willing to say they are SURE that there IS NO God. Sort of like "well I don't think he's there, but..." And I can see the appeal of that, I guess. I mean, to say you are atheist should mean that you are 100% convinced that God Does Not Exist. And that's quite a statement to make. It's also a little egotistical- I mean, who are we to say we KNOW, 100%? I told a friend once that I'm atheist, and he asked "isn't that a lot of work? to be responsible for EVERYthing?" which I thought was an interesting way to put it.
   
   As my mom put it once- the difference is that an agnostic would not sell his soul to the devil, but an atheist would.
   
   A friend was trying to convince me of Intelligent Design a while ago, which I have a hard time swallowing. But he boiled it down to "the world is too amazing and complex to be TOTALLY random. there must be SOME force behind it." Not so much on day one god made this and that and formed women out of bones and virgin birth and water into wine, and all the stuff I just can not believe- but, almost like the movie Contact- the universe is a pretty big, amazing place, how do we know there's not something out there bigger than us. [and i am not going to get into multiverse theory now.]
   
   And frankly, that starts to shake my foundation. So I stop thinking about it. ;)
   
   sorry, totally rambling. :(
5. 

   uncutsaniflush · Jun 6, 2007 1:05am

   Personally, I see atheism as a belief system that is based, inherently, upon faith. Since one can not prove that God or Gods or a Higher Power or <insert your favie deity or deities here> does not exist, one has to take the existance or non-existance of such stuff on faith.
   
   To me, objectively, there is very little difference between the statement "I know that there is a God" and "I know that there is no God (Gods, deities, etc)" There is no way to prove or disprove either statement. One can only say that the evidence points one way or another. At best, atheism is a theorem however useful - we can choose to live our lives as if there is no God, Gods, deities, etc. But in the end, atheism is act of faith in the Non-existance of God, Gods, deities, etc.
   
   To me there is a big difference between saying "I can't prove that God, Gods, deities, etc exist" and saying that "There is no God, Gods, deities, etc."
   
   But that is just me. As always, I could be wrong.
6. 

   jim · Jun 6, 2007 3:01am

   Atheism isn't a belief system for me, it's a default attitude that something with no actual evidence is utterly irrelevant - so God to me falls in the same category as magic or unicorns. You can't claim I have 'faith' in the nonexistence of unicorns, can you? Because that way lies useless semantic madness.
   
   I disbelieve in God, yes, and that makes me an atheist. That does not mean that I have proof or know more then anyone else, but I am not the one making any claims that would require proof. I don't need to have faith about anything relating to God or non-God. Atheism is not about saying 'I know that there are no gods', and to characterize it thus is totally missing the point and trying to make false equivalences. Atheism is just saying, show me the damn money or go away. Healthy skepticism is the watch word, not faith.
7. 

   uncutsaniflush · Jun 6, 2007 9:25am

   Semantic madness or not, one must, by definition, have faith in the non-existence of unicorns because faith is defined as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
   
   The Judeo-Christian religions shouldn't have an exclusive monopoly in this county on how "faith" is defined. It is a perfectly good word that isn't limited to only stuff religious.
   
   
   To me, "show me the money or go away" is more an "agnostic" statement than anything else. If God or Gods doesn't exist, to whom or what exactly is that statement addressed to? And for that matter, who or what is supposed to go away?
   
   Yes, I agree that healthy skepticism is a good thing. And I, personally, think that Atheism require faith. I think any position that posits the existence or non-existence of God or God or deities, etc require faith.
   
   Apparently, I see Atheism as more pro-active than you do. Skepticism is a reactive sort of thing. And thus, Atheism based upon skepticism is reactive. I think that Atheism affirms the non-existence of God or Gods or deities, while you seem to think that it negates the existence of God. Talk about semantic madness.
   
   As always, I could be wrong.
   
   
8. 

   joshua · Jun 6, 2007 1:07pm

   Faith is a term that will never be seperated from religious context - as far as "monopolization" of the word goes, its always been a religious term. I see any attempt to secularize the word as futile, except potentially for an alternate expression for "trust" - as in, have faith that a Republican will be elected in '08!
   
   Faith implies belief. Atheism is a doctrine of disbelief by definition - I see them as mutually exclusive. Believing in nothing is not believing at all.
   
   Since atheism is a system of disbelief, I can hardly see how it could be pro-active since denial of the existence of God implies skepticism by default, in my view anyway. I'd be interested in hearing a bit of an extrapolation on how you see atheism as a pro-active thing e:UCSF.
9. 

   fellyconnelly · Jun 6, 2007 2:53pm

   First of all I would like to say that I love this thread and the open-minded discussion of religion.
   That being said, I find it extremely interesting that yesterday over breakfast, Lauren and I had this very discussion about Agnosticism.
   
   I consider myself agnostic, though I can definitely say it is not for lack of soul searching. There are copious quantities of religions in this world, and even more sects of each. Who is to say which is the most authentic? I would never stand before you and tell you that this is the way it is, and this is the way it is not.
   
   I will, nevertheless, stand before you and tell you that I do not know.
   
   I think that is the power of religion for myself: the ability to put faith in that which I do not know. Because there is a lot that I do not know. And there is even more that I do not know that I do not know.
   
   Why do we always have to define how things must be?
10. 

    drew · Jun 6, 2007 6:24pm

    To answer fellyconnelly's question:
    
    I define my own beliefs (and the things that I am unsure of) as a basis and a framework for my actions.
    
    For example, I value welcome. I was taught to welcome by my family and by my faith tradition. I need to be reminded of that call to welcome, and reinforced in that call to welcome, because, to be frank, most of the time, it is easier to blow a person off.
    
    I define my beliefs because if I did not, I would simply fall into a pattern of always doing what is easiest, and that isn't really good for me or anybody else.
11. 

    jenks · Jun 6, 2007 6:45pm

    good comment drew. See, THAT is what I see as an ideal 'use' for religion, to use bad english. Religion, if taken as a set a guidelines, a framework, a way to live a loving and generous life- is a wonderful thing. But when it is taken too literally and transformed into some crazy set of prescriptions "this is bad you are bad you and you and you are going to hell and I am better than you because I read my bible"- that's when it's all f'd up. I have no problem with organized religion in theory. It's just when it gets all screwed up in translation that it gets me.
12. 

    drew · Jun 6, 2007 8:45pm

    Thanks, jenks. I think most of us can recognize "bad religion." A whole lot of people only see "no religion" as the only alternative. However, the "bad religion" folk will never really listen to the "no religion" folk, because they speak a completely different language.
    
    Here's what gives me hope: I think that a common sense reading of the Bible is more likely to lead to humility, generosity, and justice. That stuff is all through the Bible. So if the "bad religion folk" read it long enough, it might start to work on them a bit. At least that's what happened to me.
13. 

    uncutsaniflush · Jun 6, 2007 9:50pm

    @joshua please see @uncutsaniflush #39548 for some background on why I think that Atheism is a positive and pro-active sort of thing.
14. 

    fellyconnelly · Jun 6, 2007 10:31pm

    Drew: I completely get your beliefs and I think that is a great framework for living. I think that I was more asking a general question in terms of labels. As in why must we be labeled by our religion. I know what what I beleive in, and the religion that I feel within myself, but to explain it to anybody else, I could not tell you if it is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist. Maybe it is all of the above! I think that Agnosticism is far often too closely associated with not having any religion whatsoever. I think that, for me, the term is exactly as it is defined 'without knowledge'. I do not have absolute knowledge of what is so and what is not. But language is a funny thing... definitions are never absolute!
15. 

    paul · Jun 6, 2007 10:46pm

    I responded in @paul #39950 because it got too long.

💬 Write a comment