The Moral Implications of Agnosticism and other Comprimises

[thestonesfan]

Why would God care if I submitted to him or not? That too base an emotion for most regular people - I would expect God to take a little higher ground and judge me for something a little more substantial than whether or not I submit my life to an unseen entity...

 

[PantheraTigris2]

Because, you need to show that you put HIM, above yourself.
He is the master, and you are the servant. Will you serve yourself - or him. You need to make that clear. The clearer, the better. If you have ANY apprehensiveness about serving God, then you obvously don't know him well enough. He is the epitome of all things that are good. Good - in the strictest, truest meaning of the word.

 

[Turner]

How selfish and self-centered your god is. Of course, that's your point. . . .

Live and let live, I say.

I just don't understand why christians have this obcession with making everyone else around them just like them. . . makes me wonder. . . .

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by PantheraTigris2
Because, you need to show that you put HIM, above yourself.
He is the master, and you are the servant. Will you serve yourself - or him. You need to make that clear. The clearer, the better. If you have ANY apprehensiveness about serving God, then you obvously don't know him well enough. He is the epitome of all things that are good. Good - in the strictest, truest meaning of the word.

It is not that I have apprehensions about serving god. Rather, I don't have any other reason to do so other than the base scare tactic of threatening me with eternal damnation. Offer me something...please...I would take even a twig to slow my fall.

 

[FredLC]

Time to make a stand for atheism here. Let me start with this, than proceed to the general topic:

Originally posted by Gothmog
Just to be clear, athiesm is disbelief in God or denying the existance of God - not simply 'not believing' in God. I edited my above post to reflect that point, which I felt I hadn't been clear about before. So an athiestic stand does imply true knowledge, it is the agnostic stand that does not. Of course the agnostic also believes that no one has true knowledge of the nature of God or 'Creation'. That is where the belief comes in as I cannot know for sure. I assure you that I am as true an agnostic as you will meet.

You know, Gothmog, you are not the first one who says that to me, and not the first one who I challenge with that response. Anyway, I do not accept to have my true stand challenged due to narrow dictionary definitions.

See, the dictionary.com defines atheism this way:

a•the•ism

1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

So, without even entering the realm of how exatcly "disbelieve" differs from "not believing", I have to ask: should I think that I am immoral just because of that silly definition? I don't think so.

Let’s also see the definition of agnosticism.

ag•nos•ti•cism
n.
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

See, if we go for it, in the religious aspect, than in fact there is no mention of the concept being held here, that they refuse to claim knowledge, but they also are allowed to not take all given information with the same value. It's you that added the part that gives it a reasonable stance, because this here puts you in a position where you have to accept the hypothesis “there is God” to the same value of the hypothesis “there is no God”, without room to weight the two opposite views accordingly to their logical value, but only accept them as equal: I don’t know either way, so they are the same… after all, “there can be no proof”.

In that sense, actually, Newfangle would be right in his description of agnosticism. It would be a appeal to ignorance, as it would state a priori that no knowledge of God can ever be found, what, according to the metaphysics definition being held in this thread, would be to think of it as a perfect axiom, and hence, an axiom doomed from it’s inception.

It also would be, as he said, to equate logic with lack of logic, because it demands that you take whatever info and label than “insufficient”, refusing to take a stand, no matter if one side is, despite not proven without a doubt, to be logical virtually beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes, the dictionary dot com definition of agnosticism would imply all that… but in fact, I don’t think that’s your stand, nor the stand of any of the agnostics here. And I don’t throw it in the thread saying “here is what you really are, get used to it!”. I realize the lack of describing power of those words.

It’s the same with atheism. I do not claim that I know there is no God. I just claim that I don’t believe in it. That’s the definition of atheism I stand for. If you want to call it moderate atheism, be my guest. If you still say that I can’t define atheism like that, because the dictionary say I can’t, well, let’s come up with a new name to define the position I take. Personally, I suggest calling it “intelligentism”, so I can always define me as an intelligent person ; anyway, you get my point… my stance don’t change, regardless of what the dictionary says.

As for the actual point of the thread, I had already went through this with Pontiuth Pilate; I do know that, philosophically speaking, to obtain perfect knowledge is impossible. This is true about the existence of God, but it’s also true about the existence of cockroaches.

What I perceive of agnostics is that they draw an arbitrary line, like “from this on, I begin to feel in doubt”. I, personally do not feel like that. Despite the fact that my senses are limited, and my comprehension of reality is limited, and that I cannot offer a completely virtuous prove of absolutely anything, I do use empirical and logical thinking as tools to separate what is minimally acceptable from what isn’t.

So, we are back to the Gods and cockroaches, and for effect I might add aliens to this mix.

I can’t prove perfectly that there are cockroaches; maybe those bugs are a creation of my mind, no one else actually sees them or think of them, and every time I squashed one, I was simply deluding myself. However, I do think that the characteristics of the bug does not make them illogical in principle, and I feel comfortable to believe in them.

As for Aliens, well, did they come to earth? I doubt it, there is no serious evidence of that (or maybe I’m deluding myself about it ). Anyway, if someone asks me if Aliens exist somewhere out there, I’ll honestly say that I don’t know. If there is life here, there can be somewhere else. I lack data to tell, but they also don’t strike me as illogical in principle. Hence here I can reasonably place myself in a position of doubt. Guess I can define me as an Alien Agnostic, but that’s ok, after all we have settled that I can also define me as intelligent.

Finally, there is God. Accepting him as true is pretty tricky. It involves more than doubling universe’s complexity; invalidating all scientific knowledge we possess (as it’s a factor that can change the results of any experiment arbitrarily, demolishing their prediction value); that the rules of the universe aren’t really rules; that there are man that are better and wiser than any other man (namely Jesus and prophets in Christianity, for example), that the bible is a perfect book that have, hidden in it’s pages, all information humanity will ever need, and a lot other impossibilities and nonsensical information, almost to no end. And most of those consequences remain even when we retreat from an specific God to a obscure omnipotent entity.

So, there we have it. My intellectual honesty forbids me from categorically ruling out the “there is a God” thesis… but the same intellectual honesty tells me that this is a possibility to which I should not give serious value. Hence I feel pretty comfortable to state that I am an atheist, or an intelligent if you will.

As I once said, to place myself in a position of doubt, I require a doubt of greater virtue.

Regards .

 

[Dr Alimentado]

Thank-you Fred!

I was trying to frame a reply to Gothmog but you have done it for me

As it happens most Atheists I know would be 'moderate' Atheists, that is Atheists who do not believe in god but also could not categorically state god's existence is impossible. And as I said before this seems an eminently reasonable position to take.

 

[Junzi Nicuzn]

Turner_727
I just don't understand why christians have this obcession with making everyone else around them just like them. . . makes me wonder. . . .

A lot of atheists have this same problem.

 

[newfangle]

Thank you for the eloquent response, as always Fred. However, it seems this thread was hijacked by something neither agnostic nor atheist who just condemned all of us. Go figure.

 

[Gothmog]

Hey Fred, a nice post. I'll try to respond in kind.

FredLC wrote:

So, without even entering the realm of how exatcly "disbelieve" differs from "not believing", I have to ask: should I think that I am immoral just because of that silly definition? I don't think so.

I do not think you are immoral, that is something that DrA said. I said I think that atheists are claiming to have true knowledge of the nature of the universe so I lump atheist in with religious people. The definitions you provide are similar to others I have seen. As I said, atheism is the denial of the existence of god. Not just that you do not believe, but that you deny the possibility of its existence. The doctrine that there is no God. I also agree that Agnosticism is specifically concerned with the issue of 'a first cause' i.e. creation, which I have no information concerning, and absolute truth, which I reject. Only perceptual phenomena are accepted, i.e. evidence. Silly or not, we need to agree on definitions to discuss topics of this nature. I will accept the ones you offer. Nevertheless, you must see that atheism is denying the possibility of God by the definition you provide, yes.

See, if we go for it, in the religious aspect, than in fact there is no mention of the concept being held here, that they refuse to claim knowledge, but they also are allowed to not take all given information with the same value. It's you that added the part that gives it a reasonable stance, because this here puts you in a position where you have to accept the hypothesis "there is God" to the same value of the hypothesis "there is no God", without room to weight the two opposite views accordingly to their logical value, but only accept them as equal: I don’t know either way, so they are the same… after all, "there can be no proof".

There is mention of it in the definition you provided "The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.". First principles refer to creation, or why anything exists in the first place - and why it takes the form it does. I follow the doctrine that I must use perceptual phenomena, of which there in none related to God afaik. I added nothing to this definition. As I said in my response to newfangle, I believe that there is no proof, that no one has any true knowledge of god. I do not know that for sure. Once again I ask you what information you think you have that I lack.

It would be a appeal to ignorance, as it would state a priori that no knowledge of God can ever be found

As I responded to him, it is my experience that there is no perceptual evidence wrt to God, are you offering me some? It is an appeal to honesty, not ignorance.

It also would be, as he said, to equate logic with lack of logic, because it demands that you take whatever info and label than "insufficient", refusing to take a stand, no matter if one side is, despite not proven without a doubt, to be logical virtually beyond reasonable doubt.

I do not know of any information at all, thus I do not even have anything to label insufficient. As soon as any information becomes available, I would be forced to abandon my agnostic stand. As far as beyond a reasonable doubt, please see my definition for accumulated scientific knowledge, that is where I take my stand about proof and doubt. However, on the issue of why anything exists at all (creation) and why it takes the specific form it does - I have no information and do not believe that you, or anyone, has any either.

It’s the same with atheism. I do not claim that I know there is no God. I just claim that I don’t believe in it. That’s the definition of atheism I stand for. If you want to call it moderate atheism, be my guest. If you still say that I can’t define atheism like that, because the dictionary say I can’t, well, let’s come up with a new name to define the position I take. Personally, I suggest calling it "intelligentism", so I can always define me as an intelligent person

As far as I can tell you have your own little definition of atheism, not the one in the dictionary. That is fine with me, you are welcome to define words however you like, and even to define new words such as intelligentism (though I don't see what is intelligent about rejecting the idea of God - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), but to debate the topic we have to use definitions we can agree upon. As I said, I take the first definition in the OED as the gold standard. Since you don't accept the standard definition for disbelief, that is: a state of the mind in which one is fully persuaded that an opinion, assertion, or doctrine is not true; refusal of assent, credit, or credence; denial of belief; disbelief is a positive rejection - I can only fall back on denial as in definition 1a, or the definitions 1b or 2 that you provided. Where does your definition come from?

What I perceive of agnostics is that they draw an arbitrary line, like "from this on, I begin to feel in doubt". I, personally do not feel like that. Despite the fact that my senses are limited, and my comprehension of reality is limited, and that I cannot offer a completely virtuous prove of absolutely anything, I do use empirical and logical thinking as tools to separate what is minimally acceptable from what isn’t.

There is no arbitrary line, there is belief and there is accumulated scientific knowledge. The line is just as clear for me as for you. I agree with your last sentence to a large extent and think it reflects agnosticism as defined in the dictionary - not atheism. An agnostic just accepts that they will never have true knowledge of things for which there is no evidence. Did you not see my definition for accumulated scientific knowledge? I find it quite insightful.

Anyway, if someone asks me if Aliens exist somewhere out there, I’ll honestly say that I don’t know. If there is life here, there can be somewhere else. I lack data to tell, but they also don’t strike me as illogical in principle

Yes that is agnosticism in a nutshell.

Finally, there is God. Accepting him as true is pretty tricky. It involves more than doubling universe’s complexity; invalidating all scientific knowledge we possess (as it’s a factor that can change the results of any experiment arbitrarily, demolishing their prediction value); that the rules of the universe aren’t really rules; that there are man that are better and wiser than any other man (namely Jesus and prophets in Christianity, for example), that the bible is a perfect book that have, hidden in it’s pages, all information humanity will ever need, and a lot other impossibilities and nonsensical information, almost to no end. And most of those consequences remain even when we retreat from an specific God to a obscure omnipotent entity.

You have tried to list the attributes of God, I say that you have no information to base any of these attributes on. I do not give any credence to Jesus and the prophets of Christianity; nor to the Pink Unicorn; nor to the idea that there is no God. I do not think anyone has any information to base true knowledge of God or creation on. I think it is just as likely that the bible is true as that there is no God of any description. I just don't know. Are you starting to get that point? None of what you say above has me any closer to believing that you have any information about the true nature of creation. Do you really think it should? I am closest to the polytheist who finds God in the attributes of nature. To me studying science is like studying the attributes of God.

 

[FredLC]

Well, I'm not in the mood to answer a criterious reply right now - don't worry, I eventually will be - so, for now, just one little note:

My picking of the term "intelligentism" had nothing to do with thinking that not believing in God is intelligent; just that, as I could pick ant term I saw fit, I decided for one that is flattering.

I could very well have picked "handsomeism" or "honestism", as they would all have the same value.

Regards .

 

[thestonesfan]

Excellent discussion.

I too am not ready to type up a serious reply. But I would like to say that on most things, I do agree with newfangle's principle. Although, on the whole, I think most agnostics have given the subject A LOT of thought.

 

[Turner]

And a lot of agnostics continue to give it thought.

I used to be Catholic. I was the good little catholic boy. Did readings in mass. Thought about becoming a priest. Was serious about my faith.

When I got into high school, I started re-thinking that idea. I didn't even realize it, it was something I did subconsciously for two or three years. After high school, I pretty much broke from the faith. Suddenly (to me, but really it was a several year thought process that led up to it) I was agnostic. Looking for answers. Been doing that for fifteen years. So while I have my beliefs, I'm always questioning what I believe in. Even more so since I started taking part in these threads on CFC within the last six months or so. I don't know, I know I don't know, and I'm trying to make it so that I do know. I doubt I'll ever figure it out in this world (I also doubt any one of us can), but I do believe what I believe, and question it constantly.

So while I have a series of disorganized spiritual beliefs, I am constantly questioning them, and testing them. Until my daughter was born, they held up pretty well.

Will I still feel this way about my spiritual beliefs fifty years from now? I sure hope so. I like how I believe, and I believe it to be 'right'. But I'm also willing to rethink my spirituality as needed.

 

[andrewgprv]

Originally posted by PantheraTigris2
Because, you need to show that you put HIM, above yourself.
He is the master, and you are the servant. Will you serve yourself - or him. You need to make that clear. The clearer, the better. If you have ANY apprehensiveness about serving God, then you obvously don't know him well enough. He is the epitome of all things that are good. Good - in the strictest, truest meaning of the word.

Good is not making someone submit to your will and serve you.

Bah if that is God then who needs him. I'd rather be a free man in the inferno then a slave in paradise.

 

[PantheraTigris2]

Originally posted by eyrei


It is not that I have apprehensions about serving god. Rather, I don't have any other reason to do so other than the base scare tactic of threatening me with eternal damnation. Offer me something...please...I would take even a twig to slow my fall.

You may have heard or seen people write "Fear God" (I've seen a lot of that as graffiti on bridges, etc.), and yes, his wrath is something to fear. But, that shouldn't be your concern. God doesn't want you to be shaking in fear at his every command, being whipped into submission. No, he doesn't want you to even know his wrath, or be concerned with it. - Which would happen, if we were obedient, and didn't sin against him. God doesn't want you to be afraid of him - and that being the only reason you 'go along with it'. He wants a loving relationship, like what should be between a good father and son. Ideally, he would never need to strike fear into anyone. But unfortunately, some servants are not good servants, and they must be disciplined. Well, just take my word for it, and I've seen it in countless others, that when you start living your life for God - you change, for the better. It isn't long before you realize, this is wonderful! This is the only way to live! I *want* to do this, from now on! The reason that will kick in, is because... that is what we were made to do. The evil one loves to tempt people, into believing that being independent, your own master, separated from God, is "oh, so much more fun!" - which in reality, the further you go down that path, the more miserable and empty you feel.

You cannot change yourself. You cannot change what you are. And if you could only see the true glory of your place in the overall plan, you wouldn't hesitate. Don't be tempted, into thinking something like this:

Originally posted by andrewgprv


Good is not making someone submit to your will and serve you.

Bah if that is God then who needs him. I'd rather be a free man in the inferno then a slave in paradise.

A free man in the inferno... now think about that for a minute.
...What would a great king say to one of his subjects, if they said something like what you did? What would he do? This servant hates the king, refuses to do his tasks, neglects his duties, insults & dishonors the Lord when he thinks he's not watching, steals food from the other good servants, and always mercilessly whips the horses in the stable - in anger against the king, when he thinks no one is around. What would any king do with such a man?

And this is no ordinary king, we're talking about here. He is more powerful and good than you can imagine - and he is just. You will get what you earn. If you do right, then you will be rewarded beyond your wildest expectation. But if you do wrong, then you will be punished. 'Tis the way things are, and always have been. The only reason people try to 'get out of this' - is because they have this great deception in their minds, that they can do "whatever they want, and there are no real consequences, nothing really matters anyway, I'm accountable only to me, myself, and I - and I can do anything I want, and no one can stop me, this is MY life, " - blahblah. Yeah, sure it is. Go on thinking that way, and see what happens. The only real power you truly have is free will. It's a simple test, and God expects you to pass it. He expected Adam and Eve to pass the test in the garden - but no, weakness prevailed there, didn't it. But they could have chosen the right thing, and everything would have been different thereafter. Man has a tendency to sin. But... he still has to make the choice, to do it, or not - doesn't he.

If you do good, and have faith, and be strong, and help others, then you glorify God, and please him. This is not just good for him, it is the fulfillment of your purpose for existing - and therefore, it is the greatest thing that you can ever know.

The adversary would love to turn you into a self-centered, selfish servant - because then, you're not really a servant at all. What do you do with a thoroughbred horse that was made to run, has been fed all the best hay, has a nice stall, his own trailer, etc. - but refuses to take a single step. Won't even get up. In fact, it just sits there, hissing at you. This horse was made to run, it was made to win - that's its purpose. But, all it wants to do is be ungrateful, and hateful to it's master. What do you do with a horse like that? You put it down. It refuses to be what it was made to be. It refuses to glorify God - because it doesn't love him. In fact, it resents him, along with everything else. You get the idea, of the analogy I'm making here. The master comes to the horse, with a rifle in hand - and the horse (somehow) utters the phrase, "you cruel man, leave me alone! Just get away, I'd rather burn in hell than run for you!" Well, the horse will get it's wish. It will be discarded from creation.

But the thing is, the Lord God is a much more wonderful & glorious master than you (and me) can even imagine. A horse should be so lucky as we are. So, there is no excuse.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Richard III
Judging by the kaka I've seen on these boards, I'd say the existence of freedom of religon is what's on trial.

R.III

You've got that feeling too?

 

[andrewgprv]

Panthera you use the analogy of a servant and his King let me expand on that.

Now imagine I have never seen this king. I have never even seen anything that can be proof of his existence.

Now also keep in mind that there are a group of people in town that are telling me a list of things this king wants me to do.

And on the other side of town their is a different group of people telling me what this king wishes me to do.

And to top it off there are countless other groups who claim to know what this unseen king wishes me to do.

Now keep in mind none of these people can provide any real proof that they are the king's spokesmen yet they all claim to be. Now what am I supposed to do. Well hmmm There are so many conflicting lists of what I should be doing.....but no real proof any are correct and no real proof this unseen king even exists. Well I know! I will do what I think is right. Do what I think will be best for me and my society and if this King by any chance ever does come to visit so to speak if he truly is as wise and kind as people makes him out to be. He will more then understand my reasoning and I will be fine anyway, without having to serve the speacial intrests of some group claiming to be his spokesman.

 

[FredLC]

Still on the "King" analogy:

Vote for Hank

Regards .

 

[newfangle]

Fantastic story Fred. That had me going for a while.

 

[PantheraTigris2]

Originally posted by andrewgprv
Panthera you use the analogy of a servant and his King let me expand on that.

Now imagine I have never seen this king. I have never even seen anything that can be proof of his existence.

Now also keep in mind that there are a group of people in town that are telling me a list of things this king wants me to do.

And on the other side of town their is a different group of people telling me what this king wishes me to do.

And to top it off there are countless other groups who claim to know what this unseen king wishes me to do.

Now keep in mind none of these people can provide any real proof that they are the king's spokesmen yet they all claim to be. Now what am I supposed to do. Well hmmm There are so many conflicting lists of what I should be doing.....but no real proof any are correct and no real proof this unseen king even exists. Well I know! I will do what I think is right. Do what I think will be best for me and my society and if this King by any chance ever does come to visit so to speak if he truly is as wise and kind as people makes him out to be. He will more then understand my reasoning and I will be fine anyway, without having to serve the speacial intrests of some group claiming to be his spokesman.

Well, like I've been trying to tell certain others, you should go to the 'king' himself, and form a strong, close friendship with him... via this thing called "prayer". Believe in him, trust him unconditionally, and he will guide you. What you described above is what I refer to as 'getting caught up in the confusion & commotion of the world' - don't do that.
You, as a 'sheep' - should have your eyes on the 'Shepherd', more so than anything else. Otherwise, you may get lost. Use/ think of the sheep & shepherd analogy if you prefer. Jesus used several of these types of parables to try to make people understand. Various people repsond better to some than others, mainly due to preconceived notions (about 'servants'), etc.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I've got to second the opinions that this is one of the best debates we've had. Fred, Newfangle, Gothmog, excellent job

I'd add my own thoughts, but Gothmog has already pretty much covered what I wanted to say

It seems to me that the split between atheism and agnosticism is the rationality of God [is God a logical idea?] The atheists think not, and therefore they can have a rational disbelief of God [just like you can have a rational disbelief of round squares] without needing to physically disprove them, which is impossible.

OTOH, the agnostics admit God MIGHT be a logical idea [depends who you listen to - some religious people have been able to put forth rational deities, not the sort of King of the World stuff we often hear on this forum from Panthera, etc] and in that case we're not allowed to have a rational disbelief.