Agnosticism

[romansh]

A shortish essay on agnosticism … from myblog

[PaulS]

On 6/13/2019 at 8:51 PM, romansh said:

A shortish essay on agnosticism … from myblog

Thanks for sharing, Rom.  I had a read and enjoyed the way you laid the points out.  I think the world would be a better place if we had more agnostics!

[romansh]

Here is a list of Robin Le Poidevin agnostic manifesto points.

1. As far as the onus of proof is concerned, the theist and atheist are in exactly the same position; neither has a greater duty to justify their position than the other. There should be no automatic presumption of atheism, but rather an initial presumption of agnosticism.
2. Theism is not ‘bad science’; it is the very general hypothesis there exists, in terms of an intelligent being, a true unifying explanation of the world, ourselves, our consciousness and our capacity for good. The initial probability of the proposition that there exists such an explanation (as opposed to a detailed attempt at one) is not smaller than the initial probability that there is no such explanation.
3. [The agnostic principle: always seek reasons for beliefs, and do not make knowledge claims that are not adequately supported by the evidence. Clifford’s statement of this principle, that it is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence, is too strong. Clifford does not allow for degrees of belief: we should proportion the extent to which we are inclined to believe something to the weight of the evidence.
4. The evidence which is often pointed to as supporting, or undermining, theism is ambiguous: it can be shown to be consistent both with theism and atheism without resorting to ad hoc implausible manoeuvres.
5.  Since the evidence is ambiguous, commitment either to theism or atheism is, at least in part, an emotional response to the world, not a purely rational one. But this does not make either theism or atheism an irrational response. Theists regard the religious attitude as natural, in-built, and one which is valuable and to be encouraged and developed. Atheists, while often recognizing the response as natural, see it apt to delude us, and as something to be exorcised. The difference is more temperamental than either side acknowledges.
6. Agnosticism as an attitude should not be viewed as final, but should be provisional, to be accompanied by an open-minded attitude, and a willingness to look at the new evidence and arguments.
7. There are different shades of agnosticism, reflecting different views on how probable or improbable theism is. The admission that one doesn’t know whether or not God exists is entirely compatible with either a theist or an atheist outlook. There can be belief without knowledge
8. Even the kind of agnosticism that takes theism and atheism to be equiprobable is compatible with a practical and emotional commitment to a religious way of life. James [William] thought that such a commitment necessitated genuine belief, but the agnostic participation in religion is more akin to participation in a game of make-believe.
9. Agnosticism is part of the wider phenomenon of uncertainty, and uncertainty is positive in so far as it promotes creativity, theoretical progress, and social tolerance. Agnosticism thus promotes religious pluralism: peaceful co-existence between different faiths, and between religious and humanist groups. What id does not promote or imply is a relativistic view of truth: ‘Islam is true-for-me but false-for-you and so on.

Not sure it is exactly a manifesto ... but hey ... when I write a manifesto.
I thought they were OK, but I would have had different emphases, and I thought he lets off theists lightly.
A more detailed response can be found here.

Edited August 12, 2019 by romansh

[romansh]

I think this is an interesting blog 

https://datadivine.wordpress.com/2019/02/07/atheism-and-the-ten-commandments/

I have known Gus (virtually) for twelve years now … interesting Guy

[thormas]

57 minutes ago, romansh said:

I think this is an interesting blog 

https://datadivine.wordpress.com/2019/02/07/atheism-and-the-ten-commandments/

I have known Gus (virtually) for twelve years now … interesting Guy

Well, I will read it again a bit later but this line struck me: 

"When you assume you know what “God” means and claim a “firm and certain knowledge” 

The problem with this statement is that I know of no theologian or thinker who asserts such knowledge. They know this and are extremely careful in this regard. We are using human language and a finite perspective to say something about that which is (presumed to be) more than human and infinite. One such author, Macquarie purposely uses what he calls 'dialectical oppositions' such as being and nothing because he knows we cannot say something with certainty without balancing it with what appears to be its opposite. And Hick actually titles one of his books 'The Metaphor of God Incarnate.'

Even using the term love as in John's Gospel, Spong adds that to say that God is Love is not do say that love is God. Many of us use some common language so we can have discussions but if you asked any PC leaning theologian or thinker they would agree that they don't assume and we can't assume and none would state they have certain knowledge. 

Again, I will read it again.

[romansh]

 

[thormas]

No time to listen to this now but I think you have presented it before. 

Many people say they know there is a God. If Jung is saying this, fine. For me it is a faith statement because there is no and can not be proof, either way.

 

I took Gus to mean, not that God exists, but what God means and to have firm and certain knowledge of this. Again, I am not seeing that in theologians and Christian thinker who 'lean PC.'

 

[romansh]

1 minute ago, thormas said:

Again, I am not seeing that in theologians and Christian thinker who 'lean PC.'

Fine.

[thormas]

okay then

[PaulS]

16 hours ago, romansh said:

I think this is an interesting blog 

https://datadivine.wordpress.com/2019/02/07/atheism-and-the-ten-commandments/

I have known Gus (virtually) for twelve years now … interesting Guy

I like what he has to say and from this particular article I recognise his statement "It doesn’t matter if we are talking about God, evolution, the atom, or you yourself, we only ever experience a representation in our minds that points to that truth out there.  Our concept of it is not it."

This is where I can't help but disagree with Christians who tell me this is how I need to understand Jesus, God or the bible - even well-meaning and well-educated ones.  Yes, they feel that way about it and are even convinced of it's factuality because it 'speaks' to them, but I consider such 'speaking' simply 'their' thoughts, 'their' understanding, 'their' comfort or truth.  I get that it speaks to 'them', and many others may feel likewise, but when one doesn't feel that way they shouldn't be made to feel less, which I think Christianity often does, either deliberately or inadvertently.  I think PC tries to address this imbalance to some degree, but it still all remains simply the representation in our minds that works for us.

[thormas]

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

I like what he has to say and from this particular article I recognise his statement "It doesn’t matter if we are talking about God, evolution, the atom, or you yourself, we only ever experience a representation in our minds that points to that truth out there.  Our concept of it is not it."

This is where I can't help but disagree with Christians who tell me this is how I need to understand Jesus, God or the bible - even well-meaning and well-educated ones.  Yes, they feel that way about it and are even convinced of it's factuality because it 'speaks' to them, but I consider such 'speaking' simply 'their' thoughts, 'their' understanding, 'their' comfort or truth.  I get that it speaks to 'them', and many others may feel likewise, but when one doesn't feel that way they shouldn't be made to feel less, which I think Christianity often does, either deliberately or inadvertently.  I think PC tries to address this imbalance to some degree, but it still all remains simply the representation in our minds that works for us.

I agree with you on God: if indeed there is a God, he is not in history or time and our categories cannot capture God or do (whatever) God is, justice. In this the believer and the atheist are equal: neither can prove their case, there is no preponderance of evidence and all is belief.

Jesus is a different topic as he is or was in time, history and was finite and not only do our categories apply to him but he shared them (generally speaking). If one gets into was/is he God, is he the incarnation, his miracles, virgin birth, resurrection and (perhaps) the meaning of his death - then we have moved more to God talk and subjects of faith. However all questions or consideration of Jesus are not all simply a matter of belief. As Ehrman has said on different occasion "this is not just opinion." For example, one is free to insist that Jesus never existed, however the preponderance of 'evidence' is on the side of those scholars who state - and provide reasons - that he did exist. 

Understanding Jesus depends on the topic. For someone to argue that he was a nice Irish kid from Brooklyn cannot hold water when the history of early Christianity is brought to bear. To question the miracles goes to the God side of things but to state he was known as and portrayed as a wonder worker or 'miracle' worker one can make a good case that he was and provide sources to support that argument. To simply say "I don't believe it' is not really an argument (it is a belief statement). To say that "I have doubts about the sources" is fine but then your case has to be made and compared to that of scholars who might have a very different take on the sources. To question the adulterous/stoning story is fine and one can fine scholars who do also, however to state definitively that it is 'not true' or not a reflection of Jesus is also fine but then one must contend with experts who say differently. Again, who is making the better case? 

To take any of this material and then say, "this is what it means to me" is a different issue and a question of whether or not it 'speaks or resonates' with the individual. Some are not concerned with the factuality (and that is fine) but some believe the 'preponderance of evidence and scholarly study' provides a more solid ground that certain things are historical or factual, even rooted in history and present a stronger case that someone who simply says, "no I don't think so."

Gus does make an interesting comment that Paul quoted above: "if we are talking about .............evolution........we only ever experience a representative in our minds that points to that truth out there."  But it is evident that most on this site and most who lean PC accept that evolution in much better at pointing to the truth out there than a three-tiered theistic world view that Christianity was born into. And just saying "I don't think so (about evolution)" or it doesn't resonate with me" does not hold water when compared to the scholarly/expert positions in the world supporting evolution. 

Someone who pushes creationism doesn't really have a leg to stand on. It is their right to have such a belief but it is a belief and pales when compared to the argument for evolution. So too some questions on Jesus (not all, some): someone again, one can say he didn't exist, it is their right to have such a belief but when compared to the arguments for his existence by the experts, it pales in comparison. That Jesus existed more accurately points to the truth out there.

One can understand God, the bible or Jesus anyway they want to but as Hart said in his latest book speaking about generations of belief about an eternal hell: "all of that way of seeing things, as a matter of simple historical fact, rests on catastrophic misreadings of scripture, abetted by bad translations and anachronistic assumptions regarding the conceptual vocabularies of the authors of the NT, as well as (in certain cases) very defective metaphysical reasonings."

Simply one can say I believe in hell (as traditionally understood) or such a hell resonates with me but if one wanted to argue for hell as traditionally understood, they would have to make a better case than Hart.

  

 

[JosephM]

I can relate to Carl Jung's answer. I would say the same thing.

[romansh]

10 minutes ago, JosephM said:

I can relate to Carl Jung's answer. I would say the same thing.

Being agnostically inclined … I would disagree, but that is neither here nor there in this context. The context being there are progressive Christian thinkers who say they know there is a God. I have no way of knowing what you know or don't know. But there are some who would dismiss your position as a faith statement.

It is like Burl's vision of heaven and hell. I accept (am willing to believe) that Burl has a memory of such an event. Is it a valid reason for a belief in heaven and hell? For me? No. Is it understandable? Yes.

[thormas]

22 minutes ago, JosephM said:

I can relate to Carl Jung's answer. I would say the same thing.

I also get and can relate to Jung's answer but it is, I believe, a different knowing than most people mean by the word. 

Edited March 7, 2020 by thormas

[JosephM]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

I also get and can relate to Jung's answer but it is, I believe, a different knowing than most people mean by the word. 

Most probably it is.

[JosephM]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Being agnostically inclined … I would disagree, but that is neither here nor there in this context. The context being there are progressive Christian thinkers who say they know there is a God. I have no way of knowing what you know or don't know. But there are some who would dismiss your position as a faith statement.

I would identify as such and believe i understand your disagreement. Dismissing such a statement as a faith statement would be a most normal view, however i don't identify the word faith as most do. I identify the word most closely with the way it is described in Hebrew 11:1 which is difficult to grasp without experiencing.

 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

[romansh]

3 minutes ago, JosephM said:

I would identify as such and believe i understand your disagreement. Dismissing such a statement as a faith statement would be a most normal view, however i don't identify the word faith as most do. I identify the word most closely with the way it is described in Hebrew 11:1 which is difficult to grasp without experiencing.

 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

In a more modern context evidence is data/observation in support of a particular position. In this case faith becomes a little circular, not having evidence for a position that is not seen, becomes evidence for that position.

[thormas]

3 hours ago, romansh said:

Being agnostically inclined … I would disagree, but that is neither here nor there in this context. The context being there are progressive Christian thinkers who say they know there is a God. I have no way of knowing what you know or don't know. But there are some who would dismiss your position as a faith statement.

Well you have just been presented with two PCs who say 'to know' there is God is a different kind of knowing than other uses of the word. I even suspect that Jung (might have) understood it as we do. And for me, such 'knowing' is part of faith (but that is for another time). Again, I read progressive theologians/thinkers  and I'm not sure who exactly you mean. Even if one says they know, if the conversation continued and the question were put to them, I think they would offer the nuance that we have. 

 

[thormas]

25 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Dismissing such a statement as a faith statement would be a most normal view, however i don't identify the word faith as most do. I identify the word most closely with the way it is described in Hebrew 11:1 which is difficult to grasp without experiencing.

 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Well put: "most normal view." 

I also define faith differently. Many equate it with belief (typically a belief in particular statements/propositions) whereas my understanding is that it is about relationship. Revelation is not about divine statements that have been declared from on high that we must believe. Revelation is (God) self-revealing, self-giving. And faith is man's self-giving in response. If one believes that God is Love and that Love is Life, then the 'faith response' is to love (agape) and in that one can 'know' if Love creates, enhances and give meaning to life. 

Some 'knowing' come from doing. I can learn (know) everything that is possible to learn about running, I can believe what I have heard about running (i.e. propositions) but I only truly 'know' running when I run, when I am 'the running.' The best image to capture such knowing is the scene from 'Chariots of Fire' when the runner who is a missionary runs with abandon and has a look of pure bliss. This is knowing that is born of doing and of being. But to know it again, one must run again: doing (living it) is the knowing.

Such knowing that God is, a knowing born of doing, as evident (for me) in Jung's slight smile when he says "Yes."

This is not the normal view/definition of faith or knowing: in such faith there is a knowing but also a hope because we cannot know definitively.

 

 

[PaulS]

8 hours ago, thormas said:

I agree with you on God: if indeed there is a God, he is not in history or time and our categories cannot capture God or do (whatever) God is, justice. In this the believer and the atheist are equal: neither can prove their case, there is no preponderance of evidence and all is belief.

Actually, atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.  An atheist simply says they do no believe in a theistic God, and some may extend that to say they do not believe in any sort of God.  Their non-belief is proof they are right.

8 hours ago, thormas said:

Jesus is a different topic as he is or was in time, history and was finite and not only do our categories apply to him but he shared them (generally speaking). If one gets into was/is he God, is he the incarnation, his miracles, virgin birth, resurrection and (perhaps) the meaning of his death - then we have moved more to God talk and subjects of faith. However all questions or consideration of Jesus are not all simply a matter of belief. As Ehrman has said on different occasion "this is not just opinion." For example, one is free to insist that Jesus never existed, however the preponderance of 'evidence' is on the side of those scholars who state - and provide reasons - that he did exist. 

Jesus 'can' be a different topic as there are some things that we can 'reasonably' claim about his existence, as is generally accepted by scholarship.  But I think all considerations of Jesus do come down to belief, albeit well considered ones based on quality assumptions from scholarship, history, anthropology, etc.  A strong and seemingly supported opinion is still an opinion without the hard and fast evidence, and this is where we probably digress on Jesus to some degree.  I think everything about Jesus comes down to faith - faith in religious belief is just one part of it.  Faith in the scholarship is another part.  That's not to say that such faith is wrong, but just to point out that it is in fact, faith. 

8 hours ago, thormas said:

Understanding Jesus depends on the topic. For someone to argue that he was a nice Irish kid from Brooklyn cannot hold water when the history of early Christianity is brought to bear. To question the miracles goes to the God side of things but to state he was known as and portrayed as a wonder worker or 'miracle' worker one can make a good case that he was and provide sources to support that argument. To simply say "I don't believe it' is not really an argument (it is a belief statement). To say that "I have doubts about the sources" is fine but then your case has to be made and compared to that of scholars who might have a very different take on the sources. To question the adulterous/stoning story is fine and one can fine scholars who do also, however to state definitively that it is 'not true' or not a reflection of Jesus is also fine but then one must contend with experts who say differently. Again, who is making the better case? 

Again, I see most often these 'cases' as resting on faith, strong faith or otherwise.

8 hours ago, thormas said:

To take any of this material and then say, "this is what it means to me" is a different issue and a question of whether or not it 'speaks or resonates' with the individual. Some are not concerned with the factuality (and that is fine) but some believe the 'preponderance of evidence and scholarly study' provides a more solid ground that certain things are historical or factual, even rooted in history and present a stronger case that someone who simply says, "no I don't think so."

I don't agree with 'more solid ground' when it comes to making determinations for or against.  That is just faith.  It eoither is or it isn't and can be demonstrated, otherwise it is what you first mention - what it means to the individual.  I don't see anything wrong wit that - but to me, it is what it is. 

8 hours ago, thormas said:

Gus does make an interesting comment that Paul quoted above: "if we are talking about .............evolution........we only ever experience a representative in our minds that points to that truth out there."  But it is evident that most on this site and most who lean PC accept that evolution in much better at pointing to the truth out there than a three-tiered theistic world view that Christianity was born into. And just saying "I don't think so (about evolution)" or it doesn't resonate with me" does not hold water when compared to the scholarly/expert positions in the world supporting evolution. 

I think there are things we don't know about evolution and which are theories and best guesses, but also much of our science is based on the understanding of evolution and supported by evolutionary theory.  I think where we can scientifically support evolution then of course it shouldn't be up for debate, but where it cannot be conclusively demonstrated then I have no issue sitting within the uncertain. 

8 hours ago, thormas said:

One can understand God, the bible or Jesus anyway they want to but as Hart said in his latest book speaking about generations of belief about an eternal hell: "all of that way of seeing things, as a matter of simple historical fact, rests on catastrophic misreadings of scripture, abetted by bad translations and anachronistic assumptions regarding the conceptual vocabularies of the authors of the NT, as well as (in certain cases) very defective metaphysical reasonings."

Simply one can say I believe in hell (as traditionally understood) or such a hell resonates with me but if one wanted to argue for hell as traditionally understood, they would have to make a better case than Hart.

I agree.  But what about people who say they have had a 'vision' of Hell (as traditionally understood) as many have.  There vision may be very real to them - so do we just say they are wrong or do we agree they 'saw' Hell?

[JosephM]

4 hours ago, romansh said:

In a more modern context evidence is data/observation in support of a particular position. In this case faith becomes a little circular, not having evidence for a position that is not seen, becomes evidence for that position.

Yes, however this evidence i spoke of is not  seen in a modern scientific context because the eyes / observation in your case may be limited to either the range of physical sight / equipment  or in some cases to a later direct effect observed as evidence. It would appear that faith in the context i give does become a little circular but the evidence is in the experience of the unseen that manifests itself in an inexplicable "knowing" that in the 'now' leaves absolutely no doubt in certainty. Many times this faith (outside of merely Jung's statement) has results that are indeed verifiable to the experiencer but not necessarily repeatable at will to others. Why? I can't say. It can always be explained away by one who requires evidence in the modern scientific context but to the one with the experience, no such evidence is required other than that which is given in that gift of faith..

[romansh]

13 hours ago, JosephM said:

but the evidence is in the experience of the unseen that manifests itself in an inexplicable "knowing" that in the 'now' leaves absolutely no doubt in certainty.

I am immediately reminded of Burl's recent account of his visions of heaven and hell. I accept these are very real to him, but what I am after is more in the traditional sense of real.

13 hours ago, JosephM said:

Many times this faith (outside of merely Jung's statement) has results that are indeed verifiable to the experiencer but not necessarily repeatable at will to others.

This reduces to anecdote.  While I don't dismiss anecdote per se,  I think we need to take a more statistical approach here. Take beatification, it is based on statistical anomalies. It is no way to go about laying a foundation for life, at least in my opinion.

13 hours ago, JosephM said:

but to the one with the experience, no such evidence is required

I am looking at my red kitchen chair, the marmalade tabby is sitting on it. The chair is red, that is my experience. Every neuron in my brain is screaming red. Yet the science tells me it is not red, science tells me colour is bit of an illusion. And this tells me while powerful, personal anecdote of experience can be very misleading.

[romansh]

16 hours ago, PaulS said:

Actually, atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.

To be fair to thormas … this I don't think is strictly accurate or at least misleading. Take (philosophically) strong atheists, while they fit the label lacking belief, they do believe there is no god.

 

[Elen1107]

3 minutes ago, romansh said:

To be fair to thormas … this I don't think is strictly accurate or at least misleading. Take (philosophically) strong atheists, while they fit the label lacking belief, they do believe there is no god.

 

Where I can see what you are saying in terms of the most common usage of the word "atheist",...

Do atheists get to define what atheism means to them personally, similar to the way that Christians, or at least Progressive Christians get to define what this means to us/them?

[Elen1107]

18 minutes ago, romansh said:

I am immediately reminded of Burl's recent account of his visions of heaven and hell. I accept these are very real to him, but what I am after is more in the traditional sense of real.

This reduces to anecdote.  While I don't dismiss anecdote per se,  I think we need to take a more statistical approach here. Take beatification, it is based on statistical anomalies. It is no way to go about laying a foundation for life, at least in my opinion.

I am looking at my red kitchen chair, the marmalade tabby is sitting on it. The chair is red, that is my experience. Every neuron in my brain is screaming red. Yet the science tells me it is not red, science tells me colour is bit of an illusion. And this tells me while powerful, personal anecdote of experience can be very misleading.

Actually your kitchen chair is anything but red. It is absorbing more colored light waves of every other color in the spectrum, and reflecting more of the red light waves. It looks red to you, because that is what it is reflecting and not absorbing, and that is what the human eye sees as what we call "red".