Telling my agnostic journey - Page 2

romansh · 03-18-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiritualquest

I am completely dumb here. LOL. I will look it up, but please try in a nutshell to give me a basic definition of atheist? And Theist?
Thanks,
Debra

Debra
Take a look at this thread started by Derbonic.... it gives a whole bunch definitions by some members.... I thought it was interesting.

http://www.agnosticforums.com/genera...e-compare.html

**Skepticologist** · 03-18-2008, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john76

My only point is that it is important for people to realize there is a potential danger here. I went through a difficult period because I took the possibility of an atheistic ideal and gave it a very prominent place in my life. It led to a lot of negative emotions. I am, as Nietzsche said, only drawing ink from my own well here, but I am just trying to suggest to people that if they are interested in following the same investigative path, they should do so with caution. The atheistic ideal has the ability to trap the mind just like the theistic ideal does. I hope that people can keep in mind that both atheism and theism are only ever possibilities. Take care.

Of course there's "danger" anytime a person steps outside whatever belief set they've adopted or had thrust on them. But, in my humble estimation, no one has achieved anything approaching personal growth without facing that danger and accepting it.

In chaos theory, that juncture is referred to as a "point of perturbation". To put it simply, a point of perturbation exists when a person experiences the emotional effect of so many alternative and seemingly irreconcilable truisms that he or she reacts in one of two ways: either becoming intimidated and returning to a "comfort zone"; or making a leap and genuinely considering alternative possibilities.

I personally consider the two alternatives you refer to, theism and atheism, as comfort zones, characterized by the absolutes they espouse. They're certainly much safer than agnosticism, which essentially represents a perpetual point of perturbation. But are they really better?

john76 · 03-19-2008, 06:53 AM

Hi Skepticologist.

Atheism and theism are both wrong. The 'God' issue cannot be answered either way. Any question concerning God as a cause of anything just as easily admits to a natural explanation, in the same way that any natural phenomenon that is explained through science could just as easily be reduced to a supernatural explnation. It is little more than prejudice, habit, and pragmatics that chooses one over the other. (If you would like to see a good example of atheist propaganda, read Biologist Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion.' This book uses such ridiculously poor leaps of logic that I would not suggest that anyone waste their time reading it. It is poorly written, contains pseudo-arguments that are completely groundless, and amounts to little more than a theological treatise in reverse).

Theism makes the claim that some kind of supernatural entity is responsible for the natural universe. This entity may or may not be involved in the things in the universe to one degree or another. Atheism, on the other hand, says that the natural universe is a closed system that admits to no supernatural causation or interference. Now, there is nothing in the idea of a 'natural phenomenon' that requires that external supernatural causation or intervention needs to be included with it. In this way, it is possible that a God or gods is (are) responsible and involved with existence, but there is no reason to think so because we could just as easily imagine that this is not the case. In the same way, there is nothing in the idea of 'natural phenomenon' that requires external supernatural causation or intervention needs to be excluded from it. In this way, it is possible that a God or gods is (are) 'not' responsible for and involved with with existence, but there is no reason to think so, because they certainly could be.

Any natural explanation can be perfectly substituted with a supernatural explanation (and vice versa), without remainder of probability on either side. Atheists usually make the logical mistake that if something sounds silly to them, or is not needed in order to make an explanation, it also makes the supernatural explanation less probable. Take this example: Science says that at normal room temperature and pressure, water boils when heated to 100 degrees celcius. Now, imagine a religious mystic that says water bubbles when just the proper holy conditions are set in place and the Goddess of Steam avatars the water and creates a miracle. On the one hand, the scientist's explanation makes perfectly good sense and requires no supernatural intervention. On the other hand, the mystic's explanation sounds silly. This, however, doesn't mean that the mystic is wrong. Moreover, another religious person could just as easily accept the scientist's explanation but say a god was required to set up the laws of physics or even to maintain them. The point is that the scientist and the Steam Mystic and the religious person all have an explanation of the event, any of which might be the case. You can't pick a natural explanation over a supernatural one just because you don't need to use a supernatural explanation. That would be choosing the natural by default, which begs the question. Another error is when atheists attribute criteria of choice used in the natural realm to the supernatural realm. While it is true that one natural explanation of an entity or event can be better than another natural explanation of an entity of event, this doesn't mean that that the categories of 'better' and 'worse' also apply to comparing natural explanations with supernatural explanations.

On the other hand, theists often make the mistake of assuming that if there is a God, it conforms to their idea of it. It is completely possible that there is a God just like religious people say there is, but it could be that all their actions are really pissing it off because it is really a God that values things like lying and killing because they demonstrate power.

Anyway, agnosticism is correct because atheism and theism are no more or less probable than each other and are mutually exclusive. If there is a God, there can't not be a God. If there is not a God, there can't be a God. If they can't both be right, and there is absolutely no reason to choose one over the other, judgements for or against the existence of God or gods are completely meaningless insofar as people try to apply them to reality.

john76 · 03-19-2008, 10:31 AM

Hi again Skepticologist. One other thing: Atheists often confuse co-positioning for causation. The brain is a simple example. Some atheists like to argue that brain disorders can be used to explain certain types of profound religious experiences in certain people (N.B. psychologists sometimes point to synesthasia, which is more likely from the point of view of a physical explanation). This makes good sense. You take someone with a certain type of brain disorder or trauma, and try to reduce the religious experience they have to this physical condition. Logically, however, the fact that a certain mental experience occurs at the same time as a physical condition does not show that the physical condition 'caused' the mental condition, it just means that they happened to be co-present at the same time or that one happened to follow the other (Hume made this point long ago). It factually proves nothing in any case because many people experience what they call a 'mystical' experience without having a brain disorder. Just because it may happen in one case does not mean that a similar effect in another case can be reduced to the same cause. Cheers and happy Easter!

**Skepticologist** · 03-19-2008, 10:58 PM

Hi, John 76,

That's a hell of a lot to chew on and I'm not real sure what point or points you're trying to make. The thought that occurs to me is that you've deeply considered a lot of viewpoints of some obviously intelligent people (and I for one share your assessment of Richard Dawkins). I likely haven't gone anywhere near as deep into such considerations of other people's viewpoints, but I think I've gone deeply enough to come to a central conclusion: if I can't rely on reason and logic to provide me with sufficient answers on which to base my daily living, then what can I rely on?

In my personal opinion, which may be completely off-target, but which is at least based on 15+ years of honestly questioning my beliefs and considering alternative realities, if I have a logical explanation for why water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, why would I even consider what some self-proclaimed Goddess of Steam has to say about the subject? Even though I'm not a scientist, I can, with a degree of effort, understand a scientist's explanation about boiling water. Why? Because it's based on observable and repeatable natural phenomena. On the other hand, self-proclaimed Goddesses of Steam, or Gods of Steam, or Sorcerers of Steam, offer no substantive evidence for their claims as to why water boils at a certain temperature. While I can't prove definitively that their claims are erroneous, I can choose to refute them in favor of something that makes sense to me.

I can extrapolate that same rationale to anything else I'm confronted with. Only problem is that for some considerations, logical answers based on the scientific method don't (yet) exist. At that juncture, I'm faced with the option of accepting the "mystical" explanation that comes closest to my own personal preferences, or simply saying, "I don't know".

My choice of the latter is what makes me an agnostic.

john76 · 03-20-2008, 01:55 PM

I think the sad thing is that we take really simple things and try to make them into complex things (like I did in my last posting). I said this in my first posting. Theists are like people that sit in their house and make guesses about how many people are currently sitting in the local McDonalds, without allowing that there may not be anyone there at all. Atheists take the idea that there may be no one there, and that there is no reason to think anyone is there, and then conclude (guess) from that that there 'is' no one there. The truth is that there may be a God and there may be not, but we have no way of knowing, and no answer on either side is any more likely than the other. Saying that one answer makes more 'sense' to you than the other changes nothing, because the next person could just as likely assert the opposite. The logic of the issue makes either side equally possible.

**Skepticologist** · 03-20-2008, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john76

The truth is that there may be a God and there may be not, but we have no way of knowing, and no answer on either side is any more likely than the other. Saying that one answer makes more 'sense' to you than the other changes nothing, because the next person could just as likely assert the opposite. The logic of the issue makes either side equally possible.

As an agnostic, I completely agree with you that, absent substantive information, anyone's belief about the existence of a God is potentially as accurate as anyone else's.

The difference between agnostics and, on the one hand, believers who assert that a supreme being definitely exists and, on the other hand, atheists who assert just as definitely that no supreme being exists, is just as you observe: agnostics remain open to any possibility that hasn't been ruled out through the application of reason and logic. And, until we're confronted with new information that might drive us toward one or the other extreme, we have to be comfortable with saying simply, "I don't know."

john76 · 03-21-2008, 01:34 PM

Then I guess the God of Reason blesses you, my Son.

**Skepticologist** · 03-21-2008, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john76

Then I guess the God of Reason blesses you, my Son.

If there is a God of Reason, I hope so.

john76 · 03-22-2008, 12:28 PM

I guess the question is whether to make a religion out of agnosticism or not. Theists naturally do it for their religions. Agnostics like Dawkins, Dennett, and Sweeney do it for their's. Maybe the next stage is an apologetics for agnosticism. Nietzsche says in one place in 'Human, All Too Human' that maturity in understanding is reached when we come to realize that life is too short for the rare and extraordinary. Blessings