Agnosticism

[romansh]

1 minute ago, Elen1107 said:

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".

This is correct as far as it goes. Then there are photochemical reactions in the cones on our retinas, the cones send electrical signals down the optic nerves and in the brain these signals get processed into the experience of red. The last bit is currently bit of a mystery.

[romansh]

11 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

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

Well I suggest search the dictionaries on the internet …  it will give us a sense of how the word is used. They tend to give both senses of the word. Religious folk tend to use the strong sense of the word, from what I gather. Also the Stanford page suggest this use. The more vocal atheists tend to use the weak sense. Personally I prefer the strong sense, but I don't mind so long as when the word is being used that person is clear on which he or she is using.

16 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

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?

My understanding dictionaries reflect what is commonly used. I let Christians define what is Christianity. I have seen evangelicals claim that Catholics are not really Christian. The late Hitchens observed that to be a Christian one must believe that Jesus was born the Son of God and he died for our sins and went back up into heaven or whatever. Other Christian denominations may have a tendency to agree. Spong has had the moniker of the Atheist Bishop. This was not from other atheists. So  by all means let progressive Christians define themselves. These definitions of course will change and individuals will have their own spin. Which is fair enough.

If we look at older dictionaries (or at the three old ones  I found, Chambers and Webster from the seventies and my Oxford from 1990) they used the strong definition. I think in the 1970s there was a push to use weak definition at least from certain parts of the secular community.

 

Can I suggest my blog on the matter agnosticism

 

[Elen1107]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

This is correct as far as it goes. Then there are photochemical reactions in the cones on our retinas, the cones send electrical signals down the optic nerves and in the brain these signals get processed into the experience of red. The last bit is currently bit of a mystery.

Apologies for my combining your past two quotes to me as one. This forum only allows me so many comments in a certain measure of timing so I'm trying to conserve and consolidate as many as possible.

From what I understand on the subject, your last sentence is true, "The last bit is currently bit of a mystery."

53 minutes ago, romansh said:

Well I suggest search the dictionaries on the internet …  it will give us a sense of how the word is used. They tend to give both senses of the word. Religious folk tend to use the strong sense of the word, from what I gather. Also the Stanford page suggest this use. The more vocal atheists tend to use the weak sense. Personally I prefer the strong sense, but I don't mind so long as when the word is being used that person is clear on which he or she is using.

I have consulted dictionaries a number of times, as well as other people's definitions. I still don't know exactly what the terms atheist or agnostic actually mean.

I'm thinking that it's perhaps best to let each person define what it means to them and how these words might pertain to them.

53 minutes ago, romansh said:

My understanding dictionaries reflect what is commonly used. I let Christians define what is Christianity. I have seen evangelicals claim that Catholics are not really Christian. The late Hitchens observed that to be a Christian one must believe that Jesus was born the Son of God and he died for our sins and went back up into heaven or whatever. Other Christian denominations may have a tendency to agree. Spong has had the moniker of the Atheist Bishop. This was not from other atheists. So  by all means let progressive Christians define themselves. These definitions of course will change and individuals will have their own spin. Which is fair enough.

I've had a bunch of people jump all over me, saying that if I'm a Christian, then I have to believe that every word in the bible is true and that it is all the "word of God". 

I've told them that I don't have to,... because I live in a free country.

 

53 minutes ago, romansh said:

If we look at older dictionaries (or at the three old ones  I found, Chambers and Webster from the seventies and my Oxford from 1990) they used the strong definition. I think in the 1970s there was a push to use weak definition at least from certain parts of the secular community.

 

Can I suggest my blog on the matter agnosticism

 

I've looked at your link. I'm thinking that I might have to read it twice, when I have the time. Definitions are tricky, some definitions more than others. One always needs to consider who they are talking to and what the word means to them.

[romansh]

6 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Apologies for my combining your past two quotes to me as one. This forum only allows me so many comments in a certain measure of timing so I'm trying to conserve and consolidate as many as possible.

Not a problem …  and this will pass too.  

7 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

From what I understand on the subject, your last sentence is true, "The last bit is currently bit of a mystery."

The point being experience of something, whether it being a colour or even what we imagine to be God, requires some understanding of the underlying substrate.

9 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I've had a bunch of people jump all over me, saying that if I'm a Christian, then I have to believe that every word in the bible is true and that it is all the "word of God". 

Well that is people for you. If I were to be a theist of some sort, it would be a pantheism. But as Dawkins suggests that is just sexed-up atheism.

12 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

One always needs to consider who they are talking to and what the word means to them.

I agree, that is why I started the ignostism thread. But it can be bit of confusion when people start using words in non-standard ways, and are reticent to clarify what they mean. Or worse still the clarification leads to even more confusion. 

[thormas]

2 hours 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.

 

well said.

[Elen1107]

On 3/7/2020 at 2:08 PM, JosephM said:

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

I'm thinking that for myself I'd say, I believe in God because I experience God.

I don't know if I myself would say that I "know" there is a God.

For me, knowing is something that I experience through the 5 senses. Like I know that I'm looking at my computer screen right now because I can 'see' it, and seeing is one of the 5 senses.

I don't experience God through any of my 5 senses. This happens on a deeper and perhaps one could say, more enlightening level. . . . Something else is happening here. . . at least for myself.

I do like Carl Jung however.

Thanks for reading

[thormas]

19 hours ago, PaulS said:

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?

Given my take on God, I don't believe there are one-on-one encounters nor do I believe that God interacts directly in humanity. By that I mean it is always in and through the created. 

I have never had visions and they make little sense to me. I would not tell someone their vision is wrong but it doesn't follow that I would agree with what their vision depicts.

[romansh]

7 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm thinking that for myself I'd say, I believe in God because I experience God.

Here's a question, is there a difference between experiencing God and believing one is experiencing God?

We experiencing all sorts of things subliminally, through our 'five' senses. I've told this story before, a few years ago I went to a service for a pastor friend of mine. There were people in the audience who to my eyes were experiencing a "high". It could have been the music or the crowd … I discussed this briefly on my Aston Villa post on my blog. 

At best we interpret this experience as god, in the same way I interpret my kitchen chair being red.

[thormas]

10 minutes ago, romansh said:

Here's a question, is there a difference between experiencing God and believing one is experiencing God?

depends on what is experienced.........

[thormas]

11 minutes ago, romansh said:

At best we interpret this experience as god, in the same way I interpret my kitchen chair being red.

are you saying your chair is God? Great chair but I hope you don't sit on it.

[romansh]

Just now, thormas said:

depends on what is experienced.........

I have no experience of god … so what is your experience?

[Elen1107]

3 minutes ago, romansh said:

Here's a question, is there a difference between experiencing God and believing one is experiencing God?

I know what you are saying here, but there is a difference. Putting it into words is the hard part.

This is perhaps what Carl Jung means when he says he knows.

Somethings are as or more "real" or true that anything else one has experienced. 

Perhaps in time I can put it into words. All I can really say to a person right now is that one experiences it, when one is in touch with God or experiencing God, one knows it. There is no doubt. It's not some kind of corny, trumped up feeling that one gets about God or something like that. This is something else.

Describing it however evades me right now, . . . not too sure if it can be done in words.

Can one describe how lemonade tastes in words? . . .  Or does a person just have to taste it?

Likewise can one describe the experience of God in words? . . . One rather one has to be on a sincere search for the truth, no matter what one has to win, lose or draw even on. This is at least how some people have come to the 'experience of God.'

3 minutes ago, romansh said:

We experiencing all sorts of things subliminally, through our 'five' senses. I've told this story before, a few years ago I went to a service for a pastor friend of mine. There were people in the audience who to my eyes were experiencing a "high". It could have been the music or the crowd … I discussed this briefly on my Aston Villa post on my blog. 

At best we interpret this experience as god, in the same way I interpret my kitchen chair being red.

For myself, I'd say that the experience of God and the experience of what we call red are two rather different things.

[thormas]

3 minutes ago, romansh said:

I have no experience of god 

me neither

[Elen1107]

I have a neighbor who said she had the experience of the Holy Spirit flowing through her and flooding through her once.

There are saints and pieces of art about the saints that describe that they have experienced God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

I've read and seen videos of people who say they have had experiences like this.

Is this what Carl Jung is saying,.. I don't know

[romansh]

2 minutes ago, thormas said:

me neither

That I believe.

 

5 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

when one is in touch with God or experiencing God, one knows it.

The question I am trying to ask (I suppose) is: are we (you) willing to accept the possibility that you are actually not experiencing god, but something else?
The question for me would be am I willing to accept that I might be experiencing god. The answer is yes, it is a possibility; but, I immediately start wondering about the properties of this god.

Regarding discussing the taste of lemonade, yes it is difficult. I could do comparisons … citric and ascorbic acids, I could display my likes or dislikes, or maybe go poetic on sunrise over dew sparkled lemon grove. But I take your point.

[Elen1107]

29 minutes ago, romansh said:

That I believe.

 

The question I am trying to ask (I suppose) is: are we (you) willing to accept the possibility that you are actually not experiencing god, but something else?

I've been over this in my own thinking a number of times. I don't know quite what to say or how to explain where I'm at with this question.

I'm thinking I'll put it on hold for now, and possibly get back to it later. I know what I've been thinking and feeling on the subject, but articulating it to someone else is another thing all together.

29 minutes ago, romansh said:

The question for me would be am I willing to accept that I might be experiencing god. The answer is yes, it is a possibility; but, I immediately start wondering about the properties of this god.

I myself have gone and "kicked the tires and driven the car around the block" so to speak, with regards to God and JC. They say that one is not supposed to do this, but, well, this is me you're/they're talking to and well, I went ahead and did it anyways. 

I did end up in a better place than I was before, with regards to my faith and my understanding of JC and God. I did this very early on, when I wasn't yet much of a believer. I myself would have probably said that I wasn't one at all at the time.

I'm not saying that this is the right thing to do, or that it would work for everyone. It also seems like a kind of disrespectful thing to do with regards to these two. Thing is, I ended up with a good piece more respect for them after I did it. It was actually like JC understood me and what and why I was doing this, (though I don't expect you or anyone to believe me on this one either).

29 minutes ago, romansh said:

Regarding discussing the taste of lemonade, yes it is difficult. I could do comparisons … citric and ascorbic acids, I could display my likes or dislikes, or maybe go poetic on sunrise over dew sparkled lemon grove. But I take your point.

Ok, how about your favorite food or piece of music or something?

[romansh]

From the Ehrman blog.
https://ehrmanblog.org/am-i-an-agnostic-or-an-atheist-a-blast-from-the-past/comment-page-2/#comments

I agree with Bart the agnostic vs atheist debate can get a bit spicy at times:

Quote

In short, many atheists seem to think that agnostics are just wimpy atheists; and many agnostics seem to think that atheists are just arrogant agnostics. 

I have seen this happen a many a time …  but it's more agnostics retaliating than attacking … not that I am biased or anything. Bart goes on to say, For years I thought that an atheist was someone who said there was no God. And for years he would have been right (I think). In the seventies the definition started to shift (again?). Particularly George Smith's 1979 book The Case Against God, advocated for the implicit (weak) definition of atheism. So with time as the definition of atheist has shifted, a lot of agnostics find themselves in the atheist pool, or at least by the weak definition.

Now I am not suggesting this is the be all and end all:
Stanford's 'new' definition threw up some controversy and acrimony a couple of years ago.

Quote

Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

So beware the sands shift.

 

[thormas]

 

2 hours ago, romansh said:

That I believe.

Thus you believe there is or might be a God to experience and simply neither of us has had a one on one.

But by God, I mean I have not experienced God-in-himself. When another says they experienced God or the Spirit or the risen Jesus or the Virgin Mary - this does not speak to me at all in large part because I simply don't think/believe that they is the way God works; this is not God's modus operandi.

However, I have discerned the God who is both Word and Love in the life of the world. Simply, I believe, as opposed to you I assume, that when we love we are giving more than we have and more than we are. I have seen and experienced moments in life where love creates and enhances life; it restores life, it builds or rebuilds life. And the person who, in these moments, is giving the love or simply loving you does not recognize that the result (the life given, enhanced, restored) is their doing nor would they accept responsibility or thanks if you said 'it was all them.' There is a recognition that it was not the lover, that they did not have the power or the wisdom, given their own weaknesses and limitations, to do for you what you say their love has done. More happened, more was given than they were capable of effecting. God's modus operandi is that he is giving himself, i.e.Love, and Love is always and only given in and through us, one to the other so we might have Life. I recognize that the power to give Life is not mine but in the giving, in the loving, I am becoming (one with) Life.  

So too with the Word: I believe the Word of Life (so to speak) sounds in the words of men. One can read or in speaking with another or in hearing a song 'see' something they had not seen before that particular experience or come to an understanding that they had never allowed for before or hear something in a song that ignited them to action never before contemplated and in all this moments what they 'got' was more than a particular author or speaker or singer even intended or even knew her words carried or could deliver. This to me is the human experience of God in creation but it is not so much an experience as a discernment and with this awareness comes the 'decision' to 'move' more fully into life, to be more, to be Life.

 

2 hours ago, romansh said:

The question I am trying to ask (I suppose) is: are we (you) willing to accept the possibility that you are actually not experiencing god, but something else?
The question for me would be am I willing to accept that I might be experiencing god. The answer is yes, it is a possibility; but, I immediately start wondering about the properties of this god.

Sure it is possible (and I have always accepted that possibility) that one is simply wrong and that there is no God. However, the experience is not of something else, it is the exact same experience but it's meaning or the discernment 'into' that experience is what is at issue. If there is no God, then one's mistake would be in saying/thinking/believing it is God they discern or experience. 

And the same is the case for you. Simply, if God is but you don't buy it or you cannot/do not discern God in experience, and say there is no God - you would be wrong. So if you are wrong, you too are actually experiencing God and not simply whatever you think you are experiencing. 

Edited March 8, 2020 by thormas

[thormas]

34 minutes ago, romansh said:

I agree with Bart the agnostic vs atheist debate can get a bit spicy at times:

 

I was wondering if someone would pick up on this post. I like what Ehrman had to say on this.

[PaulS]

5 hours 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.

That doesn’t seem to be the understanding of say the American Atheists - https://www.atheists.org

“Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.  Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.” (Their bold, not mine).

Who should be the final adjudicator on the definition?

[thormas]

I get it (and read it on line) and I'm fine either way but it sure seems like atheists simply don't believe there is a God or gods.But a lack of belief works also.

[Elen1107]

I think it's perfectly fine for atheists and agnostics to define what these things mean for and to themselves.

As long as people are not like calling a cat a river or a house a chicken, and totally getting away from any common understanding of what certain words mean, people should be able to define what they mean and what the nuances of certain words are and mean to them.

I know when I've told people I'm a Christian, they often immediately think that that means I think this, this and this. I'm like, no, I don't think this, this and this. It sometimes feels like they haven't even heard of denominations or don't have any idea that different Christians think differently. Still I get where they are coming from, and I guess I was once kind of that way myself.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

I think it's perfectly fine for atheists and agnostics to define what these things mean for and to themselves.

As long as people are not like calling a cat a river or a house a chicken, and totally getting away from any common understanding of what certain words mean, people should be able to define what they mean and what the nuances of certain words are and mean to them.

I know when I've told people I'm a Christian, they often immediately think that that means I think this, this and this. I'm like, no, I don't think this, this and this. It sometimes feels like they haven't even heard of denominations or don't have any idea that different Christians think differently. Still I get where they are coming from, and I guess I was once kind of that way myself.

Good point.

[JosephM]

19 hours 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.

Reason has its limitations and the traditional sense of real can be ... well traditional ... and outdated .

 

19 hours ago, romansh said:

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.

Perhaps there is a sixth sense or even more  and while the world seems only real to your 5 senses,   your experience of it may be misleading as you point out. Yet,  it certainly doesn't discount the experience of those who have gone beyond that which we call reasoning using the 5 senses.

[romansh]

14 hours ago, PaulS said:

To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

This I think is clumsily written. What does one call a person who believes gods don't exist? ie they have an active disbelief in god? This controversy in part is a reaction to some theists insisting that the definition of atheist be an active belief in god. Thereby it is philosophically up to an atheist to provide evidence that god does not exist. Whereas this would not be true for an atheist who simply lacks belief. 

15 hours ago, PaulS said:

Who should be the final adjudicator on the definition?

There is no final definition. We just should be clear what definition we are using, otherwise there is a lot of meaningless discourse.

13 hours ago, Elen1107 said:

I think it's perfectly fine for atheists and agnostics to define what these things mean for and to themselves.

I can think of you as an atheist Elen. I am pretty sure you lack belief in the gods of the Baltic, and if you actively were to think about them then you would actively disbelieve in them. 

So what happens when atheists define agnostics into their set. I am not saying there is not logic for them to do so. If agnosticism is simply about how we handle knowledge then I am atheist. I am an atheist (in the strong sense of the word) with respect to Abrahamic, Roman and Greek gods, even though I see no way of conclusively disproving them.

The problem is there are two senses of the word atheist and some are attached to one definition more vociferously than the other. We do need definitions of the words otherwise we are reduced to the babble of speaking in tongues.