Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
romansh

Agnosticism

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, romansh said:

Thormas ... I am not allowed to answer on the Progressive Christianity thread and Agnosticism is a more appropriate thread anyway

Not sure why it can't be continued on that thread, has been ongoing with no problems or concerns from anyone and people can refer back along that thread. So, let's continue there.

Plus, think we have a few going already, let's not add to it unnecessarily.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thormas said:

Not sure why it can't be continued on that thread, has been ongoing with no problems or concerns from anyone and people can refer back along that thread. So, let's continue there.

Plus, think we have a few going already, let's not add to it unnecessarily.

 

I am not allowed to post in that thread ...the Rulz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, romansh said:

I am not allowed to post in that thread ...the Rulz

We have two Forum Administrators posting on that site, everybody is being respectful and nobody has made it an issue. We are being 'supportive' and in general agreement with th 8 PC points.

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not allowed to post on the Progressive Christianity forum ... it is as simple as that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thormas wrote

Quote

Can't state it much clearer. But with your sun example, like Paul's childhood faith: there is a 'given and accepted' belief, the data and evidence coming from family or church community (or society). Then, as Paul said, he decided, he chose, to look at other data and evidence, it spoke to him and a change in belief followed. His ("I read") was a conscious decision that caused a change in belief.

OK Paul may have chosen to look at other evidence. Perhaps there were cracks developing in his belief? Upon looking at a more complete data set Paul could no longer sustain his belief and lost it. Looking at another data set is not choosing to believe ... and I cannot say it more clearly than that.

Quote

I'm not buying it, not because I don't  want it to be - but because I don't think it is -  an illusion.

Perhaps?

cf

Quote

Again, if I bought this, it really, really could get depressing: first we come in and out of existence (an accident or happenstance I guess), it means nothing, except what we give it (but even this doesn't actually matter in the end, because the rock is still at the bottom) and now choice is an illusion. So any meaning I might impose (or give or intent for) on my little corner of existence is really not mine - all is illusion and without meaning?? 

But that is fine ... what is your evidence for it not being an illusion - not as it seems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, romansh said:

Thormas wrote

OK Paul may have chosen to look at other evidence. Perhaps there were cracks developing in his belief? Upon looking at a more complete data set Paul could no longer sustain his belief and lost it. Looking at another data set is not choosing to believe ... and I cannot say it more clearly than that.

Perhaps?

cf

But that is fine ... what is your evidence for it not being an illusion - not as it seems?

I'll respond on this thread as a courtesy.

Paul looked at new/different date and decided on (chose) another belief: "my beliefs couldn't help but be changed when I read and perceived information as the new truth." The choice ("I read") to seek out new information led to a new belief about God. Looking at another set of data is not necessarily or automatically choosing to believe (anything or a new belief) but looking at another set of data, new information, new insights - can and has led to deciding on a new or different belief: a conscious decision led to a change in belief.

Not sure what the issue is anymore.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, thormas said:

Not sure what the issue is anymore.

The "issue" for me is when we catch ourselves saying things like:

Quote

... I came to believe something else and I chose to believe and accept this new reality

my bold

 

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, thormas said:

I'll respond on this thread as a courtesy.

Whilst it is inconvenient to be discussing similiar content across two different threads, there were issues in the past with some members being upset that what they perceived as non-PC posts were being made in the PC section of the forum. 

Whilst personally i don't have an issue with such as I see the whole forum as PC and pretty much no such thing as a non-PC post (unless somebody is being rude or aggressive and in breach of the guidelines) I do appreciate that some people have a need for such a section and I don't want to be the person causing angst for them.  As it is not too hard to avoid I tend to go along with that.  I believe (not by choice :) ) that Rom is acting in good faith also going along with that.

There is no expertise in being an Administrator here other than in attempting to keep the forum on track and within the stated guidelines.  I think if people need a space to support one another more closely in what they consider Progressive Christian to the exclusion of others who they feel may upset the apple cart, so be it.  There's plenty of room for everyone here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul said: Whilst it is inconvenient to be discussing similiar content across two different threads, there were issues in the past with some members being upset that what they perceived as non-PC posts were being made in the PC section of the forum. 

_________________________

Fair enough, I suspected as much but wouldn't have hurt to hear it directly from the source. Regardless, thanks Paul.

And one assumes all are respectful everywhere on the site. 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, romansh said:

The "issue" for me is when we catch ourselves saying things like:

Given multiple threads and contributors, you'll have to give details around the quote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thormas said:

Fair enough, I suspected as much but wouldn't have hurt to hear it directly from the source. Regardless, thanks Paul.

And one assumes all are respectful everywhere on the site. 

I was merely throwing in my two cents worth from an Admin perspective as you raised that there were "two Forum Administrators posting on that site....", just to explain why/when Admin may get involved.  I didn't mean to speak for Rom precisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, thormas said:

Given multiple threads and contributors, you'll have to give details around the quote. 

It's a quote from you

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, romansh said:

It's a quote from you

And............?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, romansh said:

you asked for the context ... it's in the link

Yep, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burl wrote

 

Quote

 

Why does everyone find 'belief' and 'choice' to be such binary terms?  

Even in undergrad psychology there are four basic types of choices, and that hardly explains all choices.

 

Well I have been trying explain Burl.

Perhaps as an example ... for the next fifteen seconds, Burl, choose to believe there is no God,  just fifteen seconds. Apparently we can choose our beliefs?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thormas claimed:

Quote

A true agnostic would have to straddle because they do not know: recognizing there is not enough evidence to base any belief on. There is no sufficient evidence to take the agnostic anywhere: they do not know.

And here is Huxley who coined the term

Quote

"It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

Plainly it appears you don't think or read much about agnosticism and are unaware of the nuances that are out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, romansh said:

Thormas claimed:

And here is Huxley who coined the term

Plainly it appears you don't think or read much about agnosticism and are unaware of the nuances that are out there.

Thank god, Aldous agrees with me: I said "A true agnostic would have to straddle because they do not know: recognizing there is not enough evidence" and he said, "a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." So, as there is no definitive proof either way on illusion and if one self identifies as an agnostic, one must straddle the real fence that they think is illusory. 

His comments also speak to the issue of faith: the man of faith, "follow(s) reason as far as it will take" and makes the decision, at some point, to make the 'leap of faith.'  Such a person does "not pretend that his conclusions are certain"  - because, as has been said, he lives by faith, not the certainty of proof.

Where Huxley and I disagree is where you and I disagree: he assumes and looks for scientific grounds, evidence, proof of everything. I have said consistently, the subject of belief is not subject to the same rules as the objects of scientific study.

Plainly, it appears, you don't think or read much about faith and are unaware of the nuances that are out there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thormas said:

Thank god, Aldous agrees with me:

Wrong Huxley.

Belief and faith are not the same thing, at least not in this sense. Please don't conflate the two. Faith is belief without evidence. 

Proof of everything? ... not looking for proof other than is some utterly trivial sense of the word. 

4 hours ago, thormas said:

the subject of belief is not subject to the same rules as the objects of scientific study.

This is just an opinion Thormas. But for an agnostic some supporting evidence for a belief is required. Did you miss that in Thomas Huxley's quote? An agnostics armour is made of uncertainty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, so you're saying two Huxleys agree with me. A good day!

Again, your definition of faith.

Faith is the 'giving of self' in response to the self-revealing (self-giving) of God/Being. In other words, one come to 'believe' God IS and has certain beliefs about God (for example that God is Love - knew you'd like that one) and then the faith decision (to give oneself; to respond or not). Given your comments on Trump in another thread, it could be said that even if Trump believes 'God Is' (perhaps questionable), one wonders (seriously wonders, actually doubts) he makes the leap of faith, makes the decision for faith to give himself over in response to God. In other words, that he gives himself to Love; that he 'is' love or 'becomes' love!

The idea of faith is captured in the 2 great commandments: if one 'loves' God (1st commandment), then, faith, the giving of self or response to God is giving (your)self, in love, to your neighbor (2nd commandment). Or to reverse it: whatever is done to the least (neighbor and thus the 2nd commandment), is done to God (1st commandment). Loving, the giving of self to the other IS the giving of self to God. God is not an object, not a thing, not a being to be worshipped; God Is be Lived. God Is to be done - and in the doing, I am.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, romansh said:

This is just an opinion Thormas. But for an agnostic some supporting evidence for a belief is required. Did you miss that in Thomas Huxley's quote? An agnostics armour is made of uncertainty. 

It is my opinion or belief and I am fine with that. You seem to not accept what is my, as you say, opinion. The agnostic requires some supporting evidence, the person of faith, not only doesn't - but doesn't think any is or ever will be possible. Evidence pertains to things, objects that can be studied, belief pertains to the Subject to be encountered and faith pertains to the encounter.

The person of faith requires no armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, thormas said:

Faith is the 'giving of self' in response to the self-revealing (self-giving) of God/Being.

So when a wife has faith (against all precedents) that her abusive husband will stop beating her, it is  'giving of self' in response to the self-revealing (self-giving) of God/Being.

If something can't be studied it just might not be there. 

20 hours ago, thormas said:

the person of faith, not only doesn't - but doesn't think any is or ever will be possible.

Well that is handy for the memes that infect us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, thormas said:

The person of faith requires no armor.

That is an interesting meme that lets just about anything in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, romansh said:

So when a wife has faith (against all precedents) that her abusive husband will stop beating her, it is  'giving of self' in response to the self-revealing (self-giving) of God/Being.

If something can't be studied it just might not be there. 

Well that is handy for the memes that infect us.

 

The understanding of faith I gave is a truer, deeper understanding of the relationship between revelation and faith (the former traditionally understood as information from God and the latter blind, non-questioning acceptance). So, I believe the older use of the word (which you buy into) is wrong in all human relationships: both in the context of God and man and in, for example, marriage.  This total misunderstanding of the word 'faith' (as blind acceptance) is apparent in your example. In my understanding a person of faith (as I previously explained), in their own 'giving of self' to Love, would help the woman to leave the abusive husband. 

Theology, as I am surprised you don't know, is the 'study' of God. Never said it couldn't be studied - just said it is not or should not be approached as a thing or an object, among other objects, not even a Supreme Object.

There is no armor against life. How absurd! The Christian or the truly religious person does not hide themselves in armor, seeking a false protection; they 'study,' seek understanding, respond to Life and.........live, thereby trying to give life (as in the example of the abused woman) to others. Again the 2 great commandments: one is in the other.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×