Agnosticism

[romansh]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

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 and outdated .

I don't think so. The problem with reason is the axioms it is based on, the access to the axioms is to some degree limited. Reason gets updated as our axioms are up dated.

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

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.

Well lets call this sixth sense, intuition for the moment. It was reason and logic that leads me to think my experience can be misleading. The problem for me with this argument it is my brain that is causing this experience whether of reason or that of intuition. I have no problem with intuition, apparently I rely on my intuition a lot. But ultimately intuition should be checked against reality to the best of our ability. At least that is the way I see it.

Edited March 9, 2020 by romansh

[PaulS]

12 minutes ago, romansh said:

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. 

As disbelief is defined as having an unpreparedness, or inability to believe something, I think ‘disbeliever’ would be a more appropriate term than Atheist.  Unbelief is the absence or rejection of belief, which I think more accurately describes Atheist.

Words do have their limitations.

 

[JosephM]

12 minutes ago, romansh said:

I don't think so. The problem with reason is the axioms it is based on, the access to the axioms is to some degree limited. Reason gets updated as our axioms are up dated.

Well lets call this sixth sense, intuition for the moment. It was reason and logic that leads me to think my experience can be misleading. The problem for me with this argument it is my brain that is causing this experience whether of reason or that of intuition. I have no problem with intuition, apparently I rely on my intuition a lot. But ultimately intuition should be checked against reality to the best of our ability. At least that is the way I see it.

You can't by reason or by axioms know God. You can believe in God by reason but knowing is innate and doesn't require thought. In fact it is realized without thought. If i were to convince you by reason and axioms that there is a God you still would not "know".

[Burl]

46 minutes ago, JosephM said:

You can't by reason or by axioms know God. You can believe in God by reason but knowing is innate and doesn't require thought. In fact it is realized without thought. If i were to convince you by reason and axioms that there is a God you still would not "know".

Amen.  Reason and theology is best used to work one’s brain around logical barriers to faith and to identify the important spiritual issues and questions.  

[PaulS]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

You can't by reason or by axioms know God. You can believe in God by reason but knowing is innate and doesn't require thought. In fact it is realized without thought. If i were to convince you by reason and axioms that there is a God you still would not "know".

But Joseph, what about the fanatical Muslim who wants to slit the throats of infidels because of his innate knowing that that’s what God is about and wants?  Admittedly, I don’t personally know any throat cutting Muslims (i.e. fanatics) but I imagine they and those that are prepared to blow themselves up, might say the same thing as you.  Would you doubt their experience of God?

[romansh]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

You can believe in God by reason but knowing is innate and doesn't require thought. In fact it is realized without thought. 

Based on your suspect experience?

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

If i were to convince you by reason and axioms that there is a God you still would not "know".

Currently I would predict I would be an agnostic theist, so the answer would be I still would not know, but I would believe.

[Burl]

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

But Joseph, what about the fanatical Muslim who wants to slit the throats of infidels because of his innate knowing that that’s what God is about and wants?  Admittedly, I don’t personally know any throat cutting Muslims (i.e. fanatics) but I imagine they and those that are prepared to blow themselves up, might say the same thing as you.  Would you doubt their experience of God?

There are no fanatical muslims slitting throats.  There were mercenaries hired by Five Eyes orgs to pose as muslims, and several years ago some were making fake beheading videos.

Islam does condemn those people and believes they will be consigned to hell.  Maybe that was the cause of their problem all along.

[Elen1107]

Just ran into this video before I logged on. It's self-criticism from an Imam inside Islam.

I myself can do without beheadings and bombings and things like that. I myself would also say that these people aren't really in touch with God, even though they think they are. They have a book that says this is what God says so they think that God really thinks and says these things.

I'm thinking that a personal understanding of God could be better, and asking oneself whether 'I' think God thinks and says these things might give one a better understanding.

 

[JosephM]

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

But Joseph, what about the fanatical Muslim who wants to slit the throats of infidels because of his innate knowing that that’s what God is about and wants?  Admittedly, I don’t personally know any throat cutting Muslims (i.e. fanatics) but I imagine they and those that are prepared to blow themselves up, might say the same thing as you.  Would you doubt their experience of God?

WHo of them said it was innate knowing on their part? I can only speak for myself and own experience. Can you show me the Muslim that claims innate knowledge or is his just a belief from a book that says its okay? You admit you can't above so why assume his claim is the same as mine?

What claim have i made that you would compare what i said to your extremist Muslim  example?

[JosephM]

3 hours ago, romansh said:

Based on your suspect experience?

Currently I would predict I would be an agnostic theist, so the answer would be I still would not know, but I would believe.

You can suspect the experiences of others all you want. 

I have nothing against your belief or your not knowing. You will never know til it happens to you.

[PaulS]

15 minutes ago, JosephM said:

WHo of them said it was innate knowing on their part? I can only speak for myself and own experience. Can you show me the Muslim that claims innate knowledge or is his just a belief from a book that says its okay? You admit you can't above so why assume his claim is the same as mine?

I’m only assuming his claim may be just as real as yours because he is prepared to blow himself up for his beliefs.  That seems pretty radical to me and I can only imagine something deep in their heart must speak to such people.  I imagine they feel convinced they know God.  To me it seems a bit dismissive just to say a religious suicide bomber isn’t convinced about their understanding of God.  If there experience of God gives them such strength to commit such an act, what does that mean for ‘experience’ is what I am wondering about.

[JosephM]

11 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I’m only assuming his claim may be just as real as yours because he is prepared to blow himself up for his beliefs.  That seems pretty radical to me and I can only imagine something deep in their heart must speak to such people.  I imagine they feel convinced they know God.  To me it seems a bit dismissive just to say a religious suicide bomber isn’t convinced about their understanding of God.  If there experience of God gives them such strength to commit such an act, what does that mean for ‘experience’ is what I am wondering about.

Paul,

You are assuming and assuming is fine with me if that is your cup of tea. I was just sharing and was not looking for you to refute the possibility that my experience is real by comparing it to a suicide bomber. I don't know what they are thinking that makes them do what they do. There are many counterfeits in this world but that doesn't preclude the existence of the real. Perhaps you read harm or radical into my words?

Edited March 9, 2020 by JosephM
added last sentence

[PaulS]

1 minute ago, JosephM said:

Paul,

You are assuming and assuming is fine with me if that is your cup of tea. I was just sharing and was not looking for you to refute the possibility that my experience is real by comparing it to a suicide bomber. I don't know what they are thinking that makes them do what they do. There are many counterfeits in this world but that doesn't preclude the existence of the real. Perhaps you read harm into my words?

No, I certainly don’t read harm into your words.  I am only asking and exploring around this concept of personal experience and possibly relying on it as an argument for one thing or another.  Sorry, I don’t mean to sound attacking in any way - for me it’s a genuine question.

[Elen1107]

6 hours ago, romansh said:

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.

I'm thinking that there might be two or more senses of the word atheist as well as a number of nuances in-between.

Perhaps the thing is to ask a person what being an atheist means to them, and how do they understand it.

I agree that we can't say that the word atheist means someone who rides a bicycle, that would be a bicyclist. Or someone who does carpentry, that would be what we would call a carpenter. But that's not what we are dealing with here.

The debate between what's an atheist and what's an agnostic and where they overlap has been going on for a long time. I'm thinking that we should ask them how they mean it and how they see the word, within certain limits of course.

[JosephM]

2 minutes ago, PaulS said:

No, I certainly don’t read harm into your words.  I am only asking and exploring around this concept of personal experience and possibly relying on it as an argument for one thing or another.  Sorry, I don’t mean to sound attacking in any way - for me it’s a genuine question.

The answer you were seeking is most obvious to me. It was agreement that there should be doubt concerning the Muslim and that was in response to my statement that i know there is a God.

[PaulS]

3 minutes ago, JosephM said:

The answer you were seeking is most obvious to me. It was agreement that there should be doubt concerning the Muslim and that was in response to my statement that i know there is a God.

Sorry, I don’t see the obviousness you are referring to.  What is the agreement concerning the Muslim that leaves no doubt?

[Elen1107]

I sometimes wonder if people NEED to believe in something, anything, so bad that they will grab at anything just for the comfort of believing in something. It may be the only belief system that's available to them where they live, or the only one that they are allowed to have. But they really NEED to believe in something.

This might be what compels people to become fanatics or become things like suicide bombers.

I once felt a strong need to believe in something, but I wasn't willing to go along with something I didn't really believe in just to fulfill this need. What happened is that I ended up embarking on a long search, and eventually ended up where I am now. Where I do believe in something that I really do believe in and in things that I really do believe are true.

[thormas]

1 minute ago, Elen1107 said:

I sometimes wonder if people NEED to believe in something, anything, so bad that they will grab at anything just for the comfort of believing in something. It may be the only belief system that's available to them where they live, or the only one that they are allowed to have. But they really NEED to believe in something.

This might be what compels people to become fanatics or become things like suicide bombers.

I once felt a strong need to believe in something, but I wasn't willing to go along with something I didn't really believe in just to fulfill this need. What happened is that I ended up embarking on a long search, and eventually ended up where I am now. Where I do believe in something that I really do believe in and in things that I really do believe are true.

I agree in large part but for me it not primarily the need to believe but the need, the desire to know 'what this is all about.' Ages ago, Andrew Greeley, a priest, author and sociologist wrote a little book called 'The Jesus Myth' and in it he stated that we all need, at the very least, some 'rough and ready' answers to some basic questions: who are we, why are we, how are we, what does it mean and what are we to do, how are we to live? Sometimes, perhaps most times (always?), those answers are tied to belief systems. And enough has been written about the issues, the problems of some of those who have no answers.

[JosephM]

You will never "know" God by a concept. You can believe in a concept but you can only "know" something by becoming one with it even if only for a brief moment. You can learn much about a butterfly by dedicating your life's study to it but you will never "know" the butterfly except to be one with it. In my experience it is the same with God

Quote

 

Paul Said...

No, I certainly don’t read harm into your words.  I am only asking and exploring around this concept of personal experience and possibly relying on it as an argument for one thing or another.  Sorry, I don’t mean to sound attacking in any way - for me it’s a genuine question.

 

Personal experience is not a concept that can be defended or argued for or against without being personal

 

42 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Sorry, I don’t see the obviousness you are referring to.  What is the agreement concerning the Muslim that leaves no doubt?

5 hours ago, PaulS said:

But Joseph, what about the fanatical Muslim who wants to slit the throats of infidels because of his innate knowing that that’s what God is about and wants?  Admittedly, I don’t personally know any throat cutting Muslims (i.e. fanatics) but I imagine they and those that are prepared to blow themselves up, might say the same thing as you.  Would you doubt their experience of God?

Read it. It ends with a question. It's obvious that most all would doubt their (the extremist Muslim) experience of God concerning sliting throats, etc.

Now why would you mention it in response to what i said was my innate experience except to refute what i said rather than to ask questions to understand it but instead by using an extreme  example as an argument to negate an experience? Or assume it is the same as the example?  😛😄

PS : No offence taken here ... just thought you needed a good tongue lashing ! 🙂

Edited March 9, 2020 by JosephM
added PS

[Elen1107]

7 minutes ago, thormas said:

I agree in large part but for me it not primarily the need to believe but the need, the desire to know 'what this is all about.' Ages ago, Andrew Greeley, a priest, author and sociologist wrote a little book called 'The Jesus Myth' and in it he stated that we all need, at the very least, some 'rough and ready' answers to some basic questions: who are we, why are we, how are we, what does it mean and what are we to do, how are we to live? Sometimes, perhaps most times (always?), those answers are tied to belief systems. And enough has been written about the issues, the problems of some of those who have no answers.

For myself, your question, "what this is all about" is also tied in with the need to believe in something.

The questions that you state that Andrew Greeley lists: who are we, why are we, how are we, what does it mean and what are we to do, and how are we to live? These are pretty big and vast questions.

The question of, how did we come to be is one big one. I myself believe in a kind of evolution into Christ, or the Christ Spirit, perhaps with a bit of reincarnation mixed in. (I'm not saying this to get you or anyone to agree with me, I'm just stating that's where I'm at). Thing is, we really don't know everything about evolution, and new data and info is coming in all the time. One needs to accept that we may never know everything about this, at least not in our lifetimes, and be happy with what we do know.

Each question that Greely lists could encompass  an entire post topic thread and we still wouldn't be able to cover everything.

I'm sometimes happy to realize that there are somethings that maybe we aren't meant to know or find out. At the same time we will keep trying and searching all the same, which is probably a good thing in it's own way too.

Thanks for reading, again

[thormas]

5 minutes ago, JosephM said:

You will never "know" God by a concept. You can believe in a concept but you can only "know" something by becoming one with it even if only for a brief moment. You can learn much about a butterfly by dedicating your life's study to it but you will never "know" the butterfly except to be one with it. In my experience it is the same with God

'Knowing something by becoming one with it even if only for a brief moment' .......yes! 

This is the deepest knowing, this is the most real and intimate knowing. Spong once said that God is a verb. If God is a verb then only if man 'Gods' or, if you will, 'does God' can he know God (in that moment). He knows God because he does what God is, he 'is' what God is: I am my act (there is one). This is 'oneness' (at least a finite oneness); this moment is incarnation - man is the very embodiment of God and God is in/with/ man. 

Looking at, for example, the Christian religious tradition, we have a sense, an intuition, an idea of what God 'is' as experienced in the life of the Jewish and Christian communities of faith. We have an idea, a concept of who God Is and we have a sense of what we ought to do, what we ought to be - and in the doing, we know God Is and we know God.

To those who have this sense of who God IS and especially for those who 'know' this 'living' God - it is easy to say of the one who murders in the name of god that they do not know God and their 'experience' is not of true God; their experience is false.

You dan only 'know' running if you are the running, you can only 'know' love if you are the loving, you can only 'know' 'God' if/when you are the God- ing.

 

p.s. I have use the Christian tradition but it is just one tradition among others.

 

 

[PaulS]

34 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Read it. It ends with a question. It's obvious that most all would doubt their (the extremist Muslim) experience of God concerning sliting throats, etc.

I think that might depend on one’s conditioning and one’s personal experience.  There are obviously others that agree with the suicide bomber/throat splitter.  Whether or not experience can be considered actual experience of God is clearly a personal thing but for somebody who doesn’t share another’s experience I think it’s reasonable to probe and question respectfully.

34 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Now why would you mention it in response to what i said was my innate experience except to refute what i said rather than to ask questions to understand it but instead by using an extreme  example as an argument to negate an experience? Or assume it is the same as the example?  😛😄

Well, I can only tell you that I mentioned it not to refute or negate, but to question and try to understand.  Contrasting your experience with another, albeit extreme example, only serves to highlight the question I am asking about perceived reality of such experiences.  I don’t know if it is the same or not, that’s why I was asking to see if you could  provide any insight.

[JosephM]

18 minutes ago, PaulS said:

I think that might depend on one’s conditioning and one’s personal experience.  There are obviously others that agree with the suicide bomber/throat splitter.  Whether or not experience can be considered actual experience of God is clearly a personal thing but for somebody who doesn’t share another’s experience I think it’s reasonable to probe and question respectfully.

Notice i said obvious to "most all", not all. Very few in percentage of people agree with the throat splitter. My guess is less than 1 % and 0% on this forum. 🙂

Quote

Well, I can only tell you that I mentioned it not to refute or negate, but to question and try to understand.  Contrasting your experience with another, albeit extreme example, only serves to highlight the question I am asking about perceived reality of such experiences.  I don’t know if it is the same or not, that’s why I was asking to see if you could  provide any insight.

Yes, i believe your intentions were as you say but put yourself in the shoes of the other. If you told me you believe or experienced hell and i use an example saying people  believe in little green men from Mars to contrast your experience, what would you think? Was i probing your experience or making light of it? You be the judge. I'll stand by your verdict. Guilty or Not! 😛🙂🙂

[PaulS]

24 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Notice i said obvious to "most all", not all. Very few in percentage of people agree with the throat splitter. My guess is less than 1 % and 0% on this forum. 🙂

Yes, i believe your intentions were as you say but put yourself in the shoes of the other. If you told me you believe or experienced hell and i use an example saying people  believe in little green men from Mars to contrast your experience, what would you think? Was i probing your experience or making light of it? You be the judge. I'll stand by your verdict. Guilty or Not! 😛🙂🙂

I note you said ‘not all’, but we can both agree there is and has been ‘a lot’.  But I don’t know if our immediate discussion about support/validation  for a particular experience should be a numbers game.  

Obviously it’s not easy to discuss other people’s personal experiences without people taking it personally.  One can only try to be genuine and respectful when asking such question.  No name calling, no insulting, just questions.

Personally I think in the first instance if somebody wanted to use belief in little green men from Mars to contrast my experience with say Hell, I’d try to understand where they are coming from and try to discuss it with them to get to an understanding.  I then would probably try my best to explain why if I think their  example contrasts or doesn’t work with what I am trying to explain. Hopefully I might be able to explain my understanding 8ng to them in such a way that they then understand themselves.  Or not.  To decide if one is genuinely probing or making light would probably take a little bit of probing in itself.  Respectful probing, like we have done here.

At the end of the day if the conversation had to end with me just saying “that’s my experience” I believe I would understand why it might be stretch for the other to understand.  That’s why I was asking - to see if you had any other insights to further your explanation that perhaps could help me better understand your understanding concerning experience.

 

[JosephM]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

At the end of the day if the conversation had to end with me just saying “that’s my experience” I believe I would understand why it might be stretch for the other to understand.  That’s why I was asking - to see if you had any other insights to further your explanation that perhaps could help me better understand your understanding concerning experience.

Oh. I do have further insight that might help you to form your own assumptions on the experience. They would comprise of Impressions and feelings that follow such. I just didn't perceive that you were asking with the whole Muslim thing question before.

So here goes. The experience happened numerous times while driving, while alone, while in the presence of others, while meditating, while relaxing and  flying an airplane to mention a few that come to mind. It is something i can't make happen by conscious control though there is usually a need for it whether for myself or another. In other words i have no conscious control over bringing on the experience that i am aware of. I count it a gift. During an experience there is a feeling of no separation not only between God and Self but also the other if involved. There is a sense of no fear, no locality and a sense of Home that is difficult to describe afterwards. There are no questions, nor doubt in such a state, only knowing. Sometimes one toggles back and forth so as to bring in a question the self might have. When it has returned to a more normal state there is a sense of inexplicable peace and joy. No i do not take drugs, not even aspirins , The only exception is in the last few years i use eye drops so i will not lose my eye from pressure.

That should be a start for your questions for a better understanding if such can be had without experiencing this for yourself.

Edited March 10, 2020 by JosephM
added a couple words