Is agnosticism more than just self-doubt?

[jackthesprat]

This is not flame bait, this is a real inquiry.
Some would say that agnosticism is respectable because we cannot have certain knowledge about God's existence. Only agnostics assert there is a God such that it is reasonable to have doubt about His existence.
My postition is that if you say God exists, you are a "believer," the rest is just self-doubt, not a property of God.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. I think "Believer"

is more narrow than just a person who thinks God, in some shape or form, exists.

Might be just semantics, though.

[jackthesprat]

4. That's what I meant.

Broadly speaking, a theist believes God exists; an atheist believes there is no God; an agnostic believes God exists but doubts knowledge can be had.

[unblock]

9. i've never seeen that definition of agnosticism

agnostics either aren't sure about whether or not god exists; or believe that whether or not god exists is not a question that can be answered.

[beam me up scottie]

10. Broadly speaking,

atheists do not "believe there is no god".

A quick perusal of atheist websites confirms this and the majority of atheists take issue with that definition, especially those of us on DU.

[EmmaP]

13. Since when?

"...an agnostic believes God exists but doubts knowledge can be had.

I've never heard that definition of agnosticism before.

An agnostic believes it is impossible to know whether or not a god exists.

[jackthesprat]

17. It's my assertion.

I made it, I will defend it.
I think it is quite possible to know; the question is a matter of subjectivity. What do I know.

[beam me up scottie]

21. That is also the definition

of most atheists.

Critical thinking does not allow us to claim, without a doubt, that deities do not exist.

Some atheists will, but they are in the minority.

[jackthesprat]

24. God created the universe.

No he didn't. Why should I take that statement of needing proof against it? I never asserted it.

[beam me up scottie]

26. Define god.

Once you have done that, I will decide whether or not it exists.

[jackthesprat]

29. Just did.

Did I miss your point?

[beam me up scottie]

30. No, you didn't.

Define god.

[jackthesprat]

33. Like I said,

this is not a flame war. I said that God as Creator is one definition.

[beam me up scottie]

Please have the courtesy and respect

not to declare that atheists understand and reject a deity.

I would like to decide for myself, and I'm sure others would like the choice as well.

[jackthesprat]

62. I wasn't trying to peg anybody.

I welcome discussion. Frankly the concept of atheism means very little to me.

[beam me up scottie]

64. Is that a fact?

And yet you've spent a great deal of time telling us that we reject gods.

Fascinating.

[jackthesprat]

66. I am not an atheist.

You have expressed your thoughts.

[beam me up scottie]

71. Right.

We'll see how well you understood my "thoughts" the next time you misrepresent them, won't we?

[silverstateD]

2. grab a dictionary

agnostics do not admit there is a god. the supposition of agnosticism is that we can not know either way. there is simply not enough information

[jackthesprat]

3. Grab a dictionary?

Thanks......

[dretceterini]

7. I believe a LOT of antheists and agnostics

are actually anti-theists...they believe in something, but not a theistic concept of "God"

[jackthesprat]

11. My point is that agnosticism is not a coherent position.

You would, logically, have to believe some object exists in some way in order to have an expressed doubt.

[unblock]

20. that's the most bizarre argument i've ever heard

so, anything concept i can express or dream up "exists" is some way?
does the flying spaghetti monster exist just because i said it?

either this is just a silly semantics game, or you're a panexistentialist. if you lower the bar as to what "existence" means, then you trivialize the whole debate.

[silverstateD]

53. yea! flying spaghetti monster!!!!!!!

[arwalden]

111. Bizarre Barely Begins To Describe It.

But that's an excellent start! :thumbsup:

[Smarmie Doofus]

23. No. You've got it all wrong. We ( agnostics... or should I say,,,,

...most agnostics, those who are agnostic in the sense that I am) don't have "doubt" about whether or not there is a god; we don't relate to the question itself.

For 2 reasons: 1. The answer to the question is unknowable; 2. The answer ... affirmative or not... makes no difference in how we live our lives. We try to live ethically (if indeed we DO)) because living ethically is an intrinsic good and not because we expect to be rewarded or punished in a putative afterlife by a putative god.

Most of us are OK with other folks believing otherwise. Are you OK with us?

[jackthesprat]

27. I believe debating theology and philosophy are good.

Do you?

[Smarmie Doofus]

37. Then you can start by answering my question: are you OK....

with people ( i.e.agnostics) believing otherwise.

Now I'll answer yours: It *can* be.

[jackthesprat]

40. That has nothing to do with this thread.

This is a discussion of agnostism, not tolerance.

[Smarmie Doofus]

51. You commented that "debating religion and philosophy" was good.

That does not *directly* relate to the discussion of "agnosticism" either; although it is certainly related tangentially.

I answered your question. You won't answer mine related to the tangential issue of tolerance.

I'm not sure what that means but it means *something*.

OK... moving on now.

[jackthesprat]

54. That is all fine.

My reply was that tolerance has nothing to do with why I started this thread. I think all discussions of any kind are always predicated by respecting the debate.

[silverstateD]

50. try actually saying something and will find out

[jackthesprat]

55. ad hominem.

Please address the issue objectively.

[Jackpine Radical]

67. For me, agnosticism is self-doubt.

I know I'm God, but some days I don't believe in myself.

[smirkymonkey]

112. Thank you - as an agnostic, that would be my response

exactly. Except for the part about wondering if "they" are ok with us.

I am all for people believing whatever it is they want to believe, but I have a huge problem with oraganized religion. It's the anxiety and fear of not (really) knowing that leads people to join groups who tell them what to believe and how to live their lives.

[Smarmie Doofus]

113. There was something in the tone of the original poster....

that suggested just that: that he *wasn't* ok with people who did not choose to.. shall we say... align on this particular question: whether or not there was a god. Otherwise, why would agnosticism be so important to him?

So I was attempting to draw him out on that. He refused to go there, though... which is interesting and probably significant.

But thanks. Are you the same smirkymonkey I see in the NY Forum from time to time?

[smirkymonkey]

114. Yes - I am a New Yorker.

I always thought if the fundie plague ever spread to Manhattan, we non-believers will have lost all hope. This seems to be one of the last bastions of tolerance for athiests, agnostics and secular humanists in the country. :hi:

[silverstateD]

59. you are wrong. look at atomic theory.

one must use imagination and conjecture to grasp the new. according to you it would be impossible to figure out that world was round with out already knowing it was round. i believe it is called a syllogism. you can look it right? you have a computer? are you sure? have you ever seen an electron?

[jackthesprat]

61. That is not my postition at all.

Not sure exactly what you are saying.

[silverstateD]

77. really, what a shock.

[jackthesprat]

81. Ok. We ended then.

[beam me up scottie]

16. I believe in pink unicorns.

Everybody's entitled to their opinion, but don't be surprised when atheists dismiss your theory.

We've been doing that for years.

[melody]

5. I just say I don't have a clue about god, so I'm an agnostic

I can barely figure out my own tax forms, let alone the mysteries of the universe.

[unblock]

6. i think there are at least 2 kinds of agnostics

(1) those who don't feel strongly / just don't know / haven't decided.
(2) those who do feel strongly that there is no definite answer / no way of knowing.

those in group (1) you can call "doubters" if you want to be insulting, but those in group (2) are not doubting themselves or their beliefs.

[jackthesprat]

8. Right.

I am most definitely disputing number 2.
I think the logic is not valid. It really is just a type of formal skepticism: anything can be doubted.

[silverstateD]

14. read and learn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

setting a strawman gets you nowhere check this out

[jackthesprat]

18. I won't debate a link.

Post your argument and we can discuss it.

[silverstateD]

28. fine, debate bertram russell

What Is an agnostic?
An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

from the essay

What is an Agnostic?
by
Bertrand Russell


this is essetially my own possition in every significant way but he says it so well. good luck

[jackthesprat]

32. There are sufficient grounds

But I won't debate a dead person either.

[silverstateD]

41. that is my position and i am not dead could

it be you have no answer for it? you wish to attack the idea of what you think an agnostic is but when confronted with the real thing you have got nothing to say. you said this wasn't a flame so respond to real information not just your own false assumptions

[jackthesprat]

43. you posted a link. you posted a quote from Russell.

Post your own thought and we can have a good discussion.

[silverstateD]

47. I am an agnostic

I believe that there is no way to prove that god does or does not exist. there ya go. no big words.

[jackthesprat]

52. Why even believe in God in the first place?

I don't believe those who believe in God are correct, why should I start with their postition?

[silverstateD]

57. u miss the point copletely

u assume i belived to begin with, no. it may be possible there is a god but there is no evidence. that is all. quit trying to see what is not there.

note: pun intended

[jackthesprat]

58. OK, let's try this.

Is it not the case that to doubt something, you would need to assert it has some kind of existence?

[silverstateD]

69. i never asserted god exists. others did for me. i did not

spring from my mothers womb an agnostic i became one by looking at the illogical assertion of others like you that there is a god and i decided that you could not prove it either way. this may be to simple for you to understand. god was not my idea. do you follow? i did not have to believe in god to begin with. some one else said "there is a god" i said "prove it" they could not. SOmeone else said "there is no god" I said "prove it" they could not. That is all.

[jackthesprat]

72. I never asserted God exists.

[silverstateD]

79. no, but you told me i did by being angnostic or have you forgotten

[beam me up scottie]

86. Depends on where you think it exists.

Santa exists in the minds of millions of children.

[liberal43110]

119. Logically false

As many people have said so far, this is logically false. You do not need to assert that something exists to then doubt its existence. I suppose you need to assert that something COULD exist to the doubt its existence. But your argument makes no logical sense whatsoever.

[beam me up scottie]

36. EXCELLENT definitions.

Why do we have to constantly defend our definition of ourselves to others?

I don't go around telling christians what they believe or don't.

Or anybody else, for that matter.

[unblock]

15. agnostics don't doubt gravity in the same way

yes, one could build a philosophy around doubting EVERYTHING -- panskepticism, if you will. but that's not what most agnostics believe.

they generally believe in what they can see and test and prove. they to not "doubt" gravity in that sense. it's proved, easily observed, and so on. god is not, but god's nonexistence is similarly not provable. hence the agnosticism.

[jackthesprat]

22. Don't see the difference.

God is whatever one defines it as; just like gravity. Then we set tests to confirm or deny

[silverstateD]

31. try droping a rock over your foot

while praying for it not to fall.

good luck

[jackthesprat]

35. Sorry, that does not prove "gravity."

Everyone knew that as soon as they were conscious of pain.

[silverstateD]

44. What???????

errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr................................................ ok. what would "prove" gravity for you?

[jackthesprat]

46. Gravity is a scientific concept.

Rules for evidence and testing. Same with concepts of God. Really are not that many, especially in our Christian culture.
God created the material universe. God a Being who exists with subjectivity and care.
That plus a few more are about it.

[smirkymonkey]

117. Are you saying that God is a scientific concept?

Not really sure what you are getting at.

[NNadir]

12. Agnosticism is what religions claim for themselves but do not produce.

Humility.

[dretceterini]

19. So what should someone who believes in "something"

but not a theistic type God, call themself? Is anti-theist a proper term? PanENtheist doesn't quite work

[beam me up scottie]

25. Spiritual?

nt

[dretceterini]

45. Spiritual doesn't work

because it tends to connote that there is a "system" of seperate entities that have some sort of control over us...

[beam me up scottie]

48. Not necessarily.

Perhaps you are thinking of "spirits"?

[dretceterini]

110. Spiritual is usually related

to the idea of body and soul being different things. I do not believe in the concept of soul. I do belive, however, that evrything is connected and what happens is realted to that connection; I generally call this "the sum total of existance", or simply, "what is"..

[silverstateD]

34. I don't know but....

they are not agnostic.

[jackthesprat]

38. totally disagree.

It is false humility. Agnosticism does not take responsibility for what it holds as knowable.

[NNadir]

99. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Agnosticism merely says, "I don't know." How does this involve responsibility?

If one answers a question "I don't know," one has no responsibility to find an answer to the question. I note that it is perfectly acceptable to regard some questions as not being worth too much thought or effort. If for instance you ask me to offer an opinion on the conditions that made George Balanchine great, I will decline to answer on the grounds that I have no interest in dance and therefore have no knowledge of the subject. I am not obligated to find out more about dance and Balanchine because you are interested in dance. Humility is involved to the extent that I am admitting that I am unqualified to make any kind of assertion whatsoever, since my lack of interest in dance will make me a very poor interpreter, no matter how I try to satisfy your insistence that I provide an answer.

For the record, I am not an agnostic, although I certainly went through the phase of being one. Furthermore, I am not claiming humility for myself. I am an atheist, which is a horse of a different color. Personally I regard the search for "god" as a waste of valuable time and a distraction from reality.

I also note that the most appalling ethics on the planet come from those who claim to be working at the absurd task of recognizing, understanding and explaining "god." My lack of humility causes me to assert that most typically this search to define god is not merely a waste of time; it is also mostly an ethical negative.

[Smarmie Doofus]

88. That shall not pass unoticed. Good one! Source? n/t

[Az]

39. Agnostic is what we all are

Agnostic is an increasingly uninformative word. The more we understand of the world the more we realise that we do not truly know things in the positive. We may think we know... but... we cannot be absolutely sure of things. There is always the brain in the vat scenario (think Matrix).

The militant agnostics are right. They don't know and we don't know either.

So knowing a person is an agnostic doesn't really tell us anything. Just that they are aware of their own limitations. Do they believe the thing they are agnostic about or do they simply not believe but remain open? It doesn't inform us with just the word agnostic.

[jackthesprat]

42. Don't agree.

Knowledge can be had.

[dretceterini]

49. Knowledge can be had, but probably

not absolute knowledge. Ultimately, any belief, no matter how much evidence exists, is a step of faith...

[jackthesprat]

56. Well this gets to the core of the issue.

Without testing our beliefs or knowledge, no progress can be made.
My point is that knowledge can be had of God's existence like any other kinds of knowledge.
To define God in such a way as to deny the possiblitity of knowledge is self-refuting; the assertion itself is incoherent.

[silverstateD]

60. How?

show me this test that no one has come up with in the last 5,000 years.

[jackthesprat]

65. Maybe read more.

Don't appreciate the hostile tone.

[silverstateD]

73. Read what?

where are you getting this secret superior knowledge? The da vinci code? are you a freemason? what are you talking about? if it is so obvious than just say it. if you can do it then prove there is a god and quite messing around.

six billion hold there breath in anticipation of your revelation

[jackthesprat]

76. Like I said,

I don't engage in hostile discussions. If you want to discuss this without ad hominem attacks, let's do that.

[silverstateD]

87. the demand for evidence is an attack???

you are definitly a republican

[smirkymonkey]

115. It's like beating your head against a wall isn't it?

You can't even begin to have a rational discussion when someone claims absolute knowledge without evidence and refuses to engage in a logical debate.

[FM Arouet666]

102. Get your definitions correct.

I read the post, the respondent is asking for evidence. There was no ad hominem attack.

You cannot post nonsense and expect the forum to remain silent, then, when questioned, claim everyone is picking on me.

There is a latin saying for what is happening here and it is not ad hominem, it is ad nauseum.

[beam me up scottie]

63. "To define God in such a way as to deny the possiblitity of knowledge"

Isn't that what you're doing?

[jackthesprat]

70. No, and thanks for promting me to define it more.

One can know what one holds to be true. My examination of the teachings about God from the Bible, St Anselm, St Thomas Aquinas, my church, other theology have shown me there is very little variation in definition of God. Only Christians say that there is a God for us to believe in.

[silverstateD]

75. ????????????????????????

that about wraps it up for alla and vishnoo then. i am clear now.

[jackthesprat]

80. You want to discuss Hinduism, go ahead.

Do Hindus assert that one must believe in God?

[beam me up scottie]

78. And yet you insist that atheists actively disbelieve in it.

Begging the question.

What an irritating and silly tactic.

[jackthesprat]

83. I am willing to delete all my comments about atheism.

Really not my interest in this thread at all.

[silverstateD]

85. hahahahahahahahahahahah

oh man your funny

[beam me up scottie]

106. Welcome to DU!

Critical thinking and logic are in short supply.

:applause:

[beam me up scottie]

94. No?

Then why constantly insult atheists by redefining us and then arguing about it?

This is hardly the first time this has been addressed so spare me.

[smirkymonkey]

116. You are assuming that those who wrote the texts had absolute

knowledge of the truth. That has never been proven either. I maintain that it is not possible to know about absolute truth via secondhand accounts.

[dretceterini]

68. God is usually defined in a theistic manner

and there is not proof I'm aware of that exists of a theistic-type "God"

[beam me up scottie]

82. He's being obtuse.

He uses the word "knowledge" instead of proof.

How clever.

[jackthesprat]

84. If you want a flame war, not going to happen.

You have been chasing me around for reasons that escape me. What exactly do you want to debate?

[beam me up scottie]

89. Bwahahahaha !

"Chasing you around"?
:spray:
:rofl:

Don't confuse delusions of grandeur with debate.

You posed a question on a public internet forum and claim I'm chasing you around for responding to it?

:eyes:

[FM Arouet666]

91. He or She thinks your just so damn cute.

Stop it BMUS, the chasing is making me all warm and fuzzy inside. :evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

96. That was my intent,

Big Boy. :*

[FM Arouet666]

90. Knowledge can be had?

What kind of knowledge? Certainly non scientific knowledge, remember that part about science working from a materialistic perspective. The no supernatural zone.

Oh, but I guess that is what you are alluding to with the "self-refuting" "incoherent" statement. You cannot define god scientifically because science does not acknowledge the supernatural.

Seems to be a dilemma for the believer. As a scientist and atheist I really have no interest in proving god. Seems to me that those which seek knowledge, especially of a scientific kind, to support a god, do so out of their own self doubt.

[silverstateD]

92. nice try but this guy will never let logic get in the way

of his baseless assertions

[FM Arouet666]

95. Why let rational thinking get in the way of a wonderful

religious experience..... :evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

101. It's like discussing

evolution with Dr. Dino.
:banghead:

[FM Arouet666]

104. I am at a loss with this fellow....

Time for me to drive to Phoenix to do some shopping and have lunch. Have fun with this one.........

:evilgrin:

[liberal43110]

120. I'm gonna have to write that one down

"Why let rational thinking get in the way of a wonderful religious experience?" Nice one.

[jackthesprat]

93. Not science, really.

I am saying that agnosticism is itself incoherent as a philosophy.
Has to do with the way we think about the world.

[FM Arouet666]

97. Then what?

You made a statement about knowledge, knowledge can be had about the existence of god. How so?

Incoherent philosophy, of course, by your definition the agnostic believes in a god but has doubt. That statement is in error, and therefore your conclusion is in error.

[jackthesprat]

100. I don't believe a turtle supports the universe on his back.

I am not agnostic. Just because a lot of people believe in turtles does not make being agnostic a justifiable postition; it is reactive.

[FM Arouet666]

103. Well, then I am speechless on that one.

You got me there. I will leave you to the forum, I see any further debate will be wasted on deaf ears.

[beam me up scottie]

98. Nothing wrong with having an opinion.

UNTIL you attempt to misrepresent the beliefs of others to support it, that is.

[unblock]

107. there is nothing "incoherent" about agnosticism

either (1) YOU happen not to understand agnosticism, in which case you should respect other peoples' views before call them "incoherent", or (2) you have accurately called a view about god's existence "incoherent", but incorrectly labeled it "agnosticism", in which case you should respect other people's views before you go around using a label that's already taken for another purpose.

[Az]

105. We can increase our certainty

But we can never truly have absolute knowledge of a matter. Its the solipsistic trap. The only thing we can truly know is that we are. From there its all conjecture. It is not a question of god. It is a question of our own faulty senses.

Consider this. What you are experiencing right now is not reality. Its actually your brains representation of what happened a few nanoseconds ago. Literally we can examine the mind and see the time it takes for an experience to occurr and the brain to register it and make sense of it.

Add to this the fact that your brain interprets reality. Applying learned biases and other factors. We filter things out and add things in. All in the blink of an eye. But the blink of an eye takes time.

All manner of studies show how our mind delays and alters our perceptions. I was just reading of a study the other day in Scientific American: Mind where they gathered a number of politically active people. They set them in front of a monitor and showed them pictures of politicians. Their images remained on the screen for too short a time for the people to be consciously aware of them but long enough for their visual centers to cue up the image. They then followed these images immediately with a word that conveyed an emotion such as joy or sorrow. The subjects then would press a button depending on how they felt about the word positive or negative.

The study showed that when the image preceding the word was such that their political position differed with the politician (ie we saw bush) and the word was positive it took them longer to hit the button reporting a positive feeling. But when the image preceding the word was in keeping with the image (ie Gore befor happy) the subject responded faster.

What we experience is far from reality in many ways. We simply cannot know that what we experience or what we interpret from our experience is absolutely true. We can come to exceedingly high degrees of certainty. But we can never achieve absolute certainty.

There is a difference between absolute belief and absolute certainty though. A mind can be absolutely convinced that something must be true. But belief need not be connected to reality. Thus absolute belief does not convert to absolute knowledge. And thus we are still trapped in an agnostic position.

[FM Arouet666]

74. What a hoot....

Agnostic: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable.

I hate pedantic discussions involving interpretations of religious labels. Agnostics do not generally assert that there is a god, they assert that they do not know if a god exists.

You seem to be implying that agnostics are essentially believers that lack faith. I think they are unbelievers that are still too fearful to acknowledge reality. That old heaven, eternal life reward business coupled with punishment, burning in hell, is hard for the agnostic to abandon.

So, you are right, agnosticism is about self-doubt, doubt fueled by a selfish desire for immortality, the driving force behind religion.

[Az]

108. Belief does not require faith

Some with faith is not a gnostic(in the sense of having knowledge). They may wish they were but its not really possible.

Faith seems to be a belief of what you believe you are supposed to believe. Its the thing you are supposed to believe. As long as you believe it things are hunky-dory.

But if you lose your faith, it means you are no longer certain that the thing you are supposed to believe is exactly true. You may still believe there is a god but you are no longer as certain or you do not believe he/she/it conforms to what you thought it was supposed to comform to.

There can be agnostics that believe there is a god. But they do not have faith. That is they do not try to fix their belief by the guidance of what they think they are supposed to believe.

[dretceterini]

109. Each act is independent

Even if your car starts 10,000 times in a row is does not mean that it will start the 10,001st time. The belief that it will is ultimately based on faith

[WhollyHeretic]

118. I smell an elderly rodent

Same insulting and degrading writing trying to masquerade as discussion and the same obsession with semantics.

[intheflow]

121. Locking.

I disagree with your opening post assertion. I believe this is flame bait.

[intheflow]

122. Locking.

I disagree with your opening post assertion. I think this is flame bait.