Why I am agnostic rather than atheist.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think you could get some people to agree that they are agnostic theists, by Ziggy's definition.

I think there are some posting here.

And yeah this is despite the fact that theists and agnostic are intuitively mutually exclusive categories.

Well, since many forms of religion require absolute faith, there often is claimed knowledge of the existence, so often they'll be gnostic theists.

 

[Borachio]

I think there are some posting here.
Well, since many forms of religion require absolute faith, there often is claimed knowledge of the existence, so often they'll be gnostic theists.

Never stands up to scrutiny though, does it?

And if you want to be laughed at, do a David Icke.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I suggest this subjective experience, as in the actual brain activity, may very well be identical to your own. The interpretations differ. But, there, that's probably nonsense - it looks it to me. But an interesting possibility.

In fact I agree completely.

Never stands up to scrutiny though, does it?

Nope. But I can see that since it's so personal and usually emotional it can be more convincing than scientific evidence.

 

[Borachio]

In fact I agree completely.

So you're saying you've had a religious experience, but didn't think it was one? How's that work?

But I could go with that.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So you're saying you've had a religious experience, but didn't think it was one? How's that work?

Uhm ... let me try 2 daft examples.

I see a beautiful sunset, and think: "Wow, what a beautiful sunset" feeling joy in observing something nice. Or look at the Grand Canyon and be in awe by it's size. The brain activity which handles the observing and appreciation parts will probably register similar things as a theist who observes them and feels that joy, but the theist may interpret that emotion also as a religious experience because both spectacles were granted to him by God. And the beauty or size, coupled with that emotion could be seen as evidence for that God.

edit: Not a brain surgeon, nor a theist, so I might have botched that up.

 

[Borachio]

Well, and I quite appreciate the experience - I think we nearly all would - I'd call that a mystical experience rather than a religious one. So that secular - atheist if you will - people can have the identical experience without calling it religious.

There's no reason for them not to be identical, is there?

A sense of the almost overwhelming awesomeness of the world and our experience of it. And gratitude for being alive and witnessing it. What more could you want?

 

[Souron]

A sense of the almost overwhelming awesomeness of the world and our experience of it. And gratitude for being alive and witnessing it. What more could you want?

Someone to give that gratitude to. Someone to thank.

 

[Borachio]

Really? I just feel it. That'll do me.

I'm just glad to be alive. So easily pleased, I suppose.

 

[Souron]

Well it's not so much that believes want someone to thank, as they associate gratitude with having someone to thank. And so they feel grateful to God for the world and their being.

 

[Borachio]

Yes, I understand that. But I'm left open-mouthed by what I can see in front of me without going any further.

 

[timtofly]

I think there are some posting here.

I envy your ability to keep track of who is who around here.

Well, since many forms of religion require absolute faith, there often is claimed knowledge of the existence, so often they'll be gnostic theists.

My knowledge of God does not come from religion, nor mystical experiences. Would I be just a plain ole gnostic?

 

[Glassfan]

When I went through the decision period of my life, I had the benefit of two books; Why I am not a Christian by Bertrand Russell, and Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. A couple of truly brilliant and impressive English thinkers, Russell and Lewis directly addressed each other's assertions and criticisms in a way that was wide-ranging, insightful and extremely enlightening. By contrast, they make Dawkins and Zacharias look like knuckleheads. I eventually came down on the side of Lewis.

 

[Souron]

My knowledge of God does not come from religion, nor mystical experiences. Would I be just a plain ole gnostic?

If you claim to believe and know god exists, then you're a gnostic theist. You can't be a plane old gnostic, because the definitions of theism and atheism that Ziggy is using include every possible position on the belief in God.

 

[Borachio]

Wait. If someone knows (see my recent post on Define Knowledge), that means he doesn't believe - since belief has become superfluous. I'm with timtofly. He's just plain ole gnostic.

 

[Gatsby]

I define the word “god” as a “conscious or sentient first cause.” If you are not familiar with the concept of first cause, allow me to explain. First cause is the notion that there must have been an event/entity that caused the multiverse/cosmos to exist, and thus caused there to be “something rather than nothing.” This first cause would not be caused by anything else, and would thus violate the rules of casualty.

.....

All events/entities in the cosmos can be divided into two broad categories, the conscious and the non-conscious.

How do you define conscious and sentient? Could there be intermediate degrees between fully conscious and fully non-conscious?

"Nothingness" is perhaps the most astounding idea ever dreamt up by the human imagination - even more astounding than the idea of God. True nothingness is so completely alien to the world of human experience, and it is not surprising that we have so much trouble with the question of how the cosmos was created from a "nothing" that we assume to have existed beforehand. Perhaps instead of thinking about the origin of the cosmos in terms of "something" and "nothing", it would be more practical to think about it in terms of (respectively) "manifest" and "unmanifest"?

 

[Borachio]

Interesting.

Do these correspond to observable and unobservable? Or perhaps the known and unknown?

Or are you thinking more in terms of this?:

manifest_vs_unmanifest

 

[Gatsby]

Of those three options, observable vs unobservable comes closest to what I am talking about. Known and unknown can only be talked about in reference to an entity or group of entities capable of knowing; observability has a connotation of objectiveness that "known" does not, i.e. what is observable can potentially be known even if it is not currently known by a given entity.

The definition of manifestation in your link is also centred around whether a (human) entity knows about the presence of another entity (e.g. ghost), but in this case the other entity hides its presence from the first entity. If we assume ghosts are real for argument's sake, then I would say the ghost is manifest and hidden rather than unmanifest.

When I think of "manifest" vs. "unmanifest" the first image that comes to mind is that of a ball perched at the top of a hill. While the ball is stationary at the top of the hill it has potential energy, which can be likened to unmanifest kinetic energy. When the ball is pushed and starts rolling down the hill its potential energy becomes manifested as kinetic energy.

In a cosmic context, the unmanifest could be regarded as pure potential: it is featureless, unbounded and unlimited and it has the potential to do or be anything, but by that very fact it is also incapable of actually "doing" anything while it remains unmanifest. The manifest (e.g. the universe) unfolds from the potential/unmanifest: it has distinct features and is thus bounded and limited, but by that very fact it is also capable of "doing" something. If we regard "manifest" and "unmanifest" as opposite sides of the same trade-off and think of the unmanifest as the potential/seed of the manifest, then we no longer have to worry about the impossibility of "something" coming from "nothing".

 

[Borachio]

Of those three options, observable vs unobservable comes closest to what I am talking about. Known and unknown can only be talked about in reference to an entity or group of entities capable of knowing; observability has a connotation of objectiveness that "known" does not, i.e. what is observable can potentially be known even if it is not currently known by a given entity.

The definition of manifestation in your link is also centred around whether a (human) entity knows about the presence of another entity (e.g. ghost), but in this case the other entity hides its presence from the first entity. If we assume ghosts are real for argument's sake, then I would say the ghost is hidden rather than unmanifest.

When I think of "manifest" vs. "unmanifest" the first image that comes to mind is that of a ball perched at the top of a hill. While the ball is stationary at the top of the hill it has potential energy, which can be likened to unmanifest kinetic energy. When the ball is pushed and starts rolling down the hill its potential energy becomes manifested as kinetic energy.

In a cosmic context, the unmanifest could be regarded as pure potential: it is featureless and is therefore unbounded and unlimited, but by that very fact it is also incapable of "doing" anything while it remains unmanifest. The manifest (e.g. the universe) unfolds from the potential/unmanifest: it has distinct features and is thus bounded and limited, but by that very fact it is also capable of "doing" something. If we regard "manifest" and "unmanifest" as opposite sides of the same trade-off and think of the unmanifest as the potential/seed of the manifest, then we no longer have to worry about the impossibility of something coming from nothing.

That's interesting.

But isn't the possibility of something coming from nothing taken care of by particle physics science? Don't ask me. I don't know much more, if anything.

The known/unknown paradigm suits me well. Since my chief focus is on what I know. I don't see how to escape my own subjectivity - all I have to work with is the form of my experience of anything. But I have a decided solipsistic bent. It doesn't suit everyone.

 

[Gatsby]

That's interesting.

But isn't the possibility of something coming from nothing taken care of by particle physics science? Don't ask me. I don't know much more, if anything.

The known/unknown paradigm suits me well. Since my chief focus is on what I know. I don't see how to escape my own subjectivity - all I have to work with is the form of my experience of anything. But I have a decided solipsistic bent. It doesn't suit everyone.

From what I've heard the possibility of something coming from nothing is indeed taken care of by particle science, basically by positing that the universe originates from a field or sea of potential/virtual energy. In other words, particle physics has explained something coming from nothing by actually doing away with the something/nothing dichotomy and replacing it with something that looks very much like a distinction between manifest and unmanifest.

I agree with you that reality can only be experienced subjectively and that we can only work with the form of our experience of reality. However this idea of "subjective" leaves a lot of room for interpretation: to what extent do our physiologically-, environmentally- and culturally-conditioned biases and preconceptions colour our primary subjective experience of reality? How intertwined is one's own mind and the rest of reality, and is the duality between self and other exaggerated or even illusory? Solipsism is an intriguing notion but I think it extrapolates the (admittedly substantial) subjective component of reality too far, and it seems to be invalidated by the mere fact that it is possible to be completely blind-sided by unexpected events.

 

[Borachio]

Eek! I'm out of my depth here.

As for solipsism, see Define Knowledge. Where I'm equally at sea.