Am I an Agnostic? What kind...?

Kenneth · 04-13-2008, 10:22 AM

Before recently, I leaned atheist for the past few years of my life. But a little studies in the philosophy of logic has me gravitating towards agnosticism. So what kind of agnostic am I (if I am one at all...) if I deny 100% the existence of all the gods, both dead and alive, that human cultures have invented, yet I remain agnostic towards the general idea of a God who may have been the force behind the point of singularity (Big Bang), and hence the existence of the universe ultimately?

I get confused when one time I read that agnosticism is really about the existence of God being "unknowable," and then I read that agnostics can be atheistic about some gods. It seems more reasonable to me that God is not so much "unknowable" as it is that our methods for detecting him are still so primitive. Isn't it more likely that we just don't have the technology and know-how to detect a God if he exists, rather than to say that he's "unknowable"? What does that mean exactly? At one point in time, humans didn't know about evolution and the Big Bang, but eventually time and its corresponding advances in knowledge enlightened our understanding. Maybe some day it will enlighten our understanding about God, or show us that God never existed...

romansh · 04-13-2008, 10:50 AM

Welcome Kenneth

regarding agnosticism ... I think some of the confusion arises from the different definitions in use. I have attached a thread below that is sort of fun.

all the best and have fun

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derbonic

This could be revealing.
In your own words, define the following words.
1. Religion
2. Faith
3. Belief/Believe
4. Pretend
5. Hope
6. Theist
7. Atheist
8. Agnostic
9. Deist
10. Honesty
This will be more fun if you dont read the other posts before answering.

**debdodd** · 04-13-2008, 11:23 AM

Welcome to forum, hope you find the answers you're looking for or at least have stimulating conversations with us. Best wishes, Deb

My question to you would be if there is a God and he/she/it wants to be worshipped and believed in .... why would he be unknowable? All it would take is him/her/it showing up in a couple of places to dispel all doubt ... then case closed ... everyone would know ..... it makes no sense to me if there is a god why he/she/it wouldn't show up once in a while .....

not that I believe this hypothesis either but some think that we were put here as an experiment by an alien race and that the UFO's that are showing up are those scientist checking up on their experiment .....

the agnostic part of us is that we admit we do not know and are in many instances searching for answers .... I believe most agnostics would love to finally "know" the truth .... but just my opinion ... take care and enjoy.

Kenneth · 04-13-2008, 12:05 PM

But are there any agnostics out there, for example, who say that we simply cannot know whether Zeus or the Christian God are true propositions? Does my denying those gods' existence make me an atheistic agnostic or someone who isn't a true agnostic?

**debdodd** · 04-13-2008, 01:00 PM

it takes a better mind to answer any profound questions such as personal belief ..... I simply say I don't know and try to live what I believe is an honest, loving life ....

I leave all the big brain questions to the brainiacs on this forum ... some have theology backgrounds such as Poinciccio .... Og is the science guru around here (he just left for 2 weeks on his honeymoon) and the rest of us fall between ....

I try to provide the comedic relief on occasion .... we have folks from around 15 to 60 with diverse backgrounds ... you should find plenty of people that can answer more profound questions for you ....

best wishes ...

romansh · 04-13-2008, 01:13 PM

In the absence of our resident philosophers:

Quote:

Bertrand Russell: 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.

To my mind I have not heard anyone clearer from an agnostic point of view.
http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-tex...l/agnostic.htm

Vinterland · 04-13-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth

Before recently, I leaned atheist for the past few years of my life. But a little studies in the philosophy of logic has me gravitating towards agnosticism. So what kind of agnostic am I (if I am one at all...) if I deny 100% the existence of all the gods, both dead and alive, that human cultures have invented, yet I remain agnostic towards the general idea of a God who may have been the force behind the point of singularity (Big Bang), and hence the existence of the universe ultimately?

I get confused when one time I read that agnosticism is really about the existence of God being "unknowable," and then I read that agnostics can be atheistic about some gods. It seems more reasonable to me that God is not so much "unknowable" as it is that our methods for detecting him are still so primitive. Isn't it more likely that we just don't have the technology and know-how to detect a God if he exists, rather than to say that he's "unknowable"? What does that mean exactly? At one point in time, humans didn't know about evolution and the Big Bang, but eventually time and its corresponding advances in knowledge enlightened our understanding. Maybe some day it will enlighten our understanding about God, or show us that God never existed...

First, read Huxley's statements on agnosticism; that will clear up a lot for you. You also have a misunderstanding of atheism; you cannot deny the existence of gods merely by being an atheist when all that is required to be an atheism is to not believe in god. What you're describing is strong-atheism.

You cannot say you deny the existence of any god, Christian, deist or whatever and call yourself an agnostic unless you want to be a hypocrite (and many "agnostics" are indeed). You will have a great task at hand proving there are any religions invented by human cultures.

I think you're right about God not being inherently unknowable and I agree that we are merely missing data on the creature if indeed exists. What it means to be unknowable I can express like this, say if modern scientists visitied another universe where all life was silicone-based. If a silicone based life form was crawling right in front of them would they have the tools to recognize it as life? Perhaps God is right in front of us, all around and some of us just don't have the tools.

Welcome to the board,
Vinter

romansh · 04-13-2008, 01:57 PM

another quote from Russell

Quote:

Bertrand Russell: Proof of God

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm

Kenneth · 04-13-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinterland

You cannot say you deny the existence of any god, Christian, deist or whatever and call yourself an agnostic unless you want to be a hypocrite (and many "agnostics" are indeed). You will have a great task at hand proving there are any religions invented by human cultures.

I knew I was a weird one, because I feel like a "strong" atheist when it comes to the gods of our human cultures, but agnostic towards that extraterrestrial entity that could be the prime mover of our universe. But I don't understand why you say I can't regard every religion and conception of god that arose here on earth as mere inventions of human cultures. For example, Christianity was the product of the Hellenistic Jewish culture in the 1st century. Islam was the product of medieval Arabic culture and specifically that of its prophet Mohammed, and so on. It's not a big deal.

Quote:

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

I don't understand Russell's hesitation to deny those gods' existence. A "logical proposition" to disprove those gods' existence isn't even needed or proper because the people who introduced those gods to the world never gave a "logical proposition" to affirm their existence. They are mere elements of Greek folklore. They are as dead as the ancient Greeks themselves.

romansh · 04-13-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth

1) I knew I was a weird one, because I feel like a "strong" atheist when it comes to the gods of our human cultures, but agnostic towards that extraterrestrial entity that could be the prime mover of our universe.

2) I don't understand Russell's hesitation to deny those gods' existence. A "logical proposition" to disprove those gods' existence isn't even needed or proper because the people who introduced those gods to the world never gave a "logical proposition" to affirm their existence. They are mere elements of Greek folklore. They are as dead as the ancient Greeks themselves.

1) I think this is a logical conclusion and not that uncommon in general terms.
2) Russell knows he cannot disprove homeric, Christian, or any other god. His belief is likely atheistic, but his knowledge agnostic ... if you see what I mean.

OK .... got go guys ... see you next week.

and welcome again Kenneth.