The spiritual Practice of Agnosticism

[LongTomH]

I know this will raise some hackles here (and, by the way, this pretty well describes my 'beliefs,' if one can call it that!) The Spiritual Practice of Agnosticism:

As an agnostic, I’m very aware that we agnostics are often seen as fence-sitters—the tepid ones choosing neither hot nor cold. Why can’t we just buck up and admit that we’re atheists? Or why can’t we admit that we have a soft spot for one god or another? Why can’t we just cry wolf or shut up?

Contrary to the cliche, agnosticism isn’t about not deciding. It’s about honestly facing what we know about knowing itself. It is, as the Victorian biologist, T.H. Huxley, who coined the term, said, “not a creed but a method.” (Athiesm is a creed because it is a belief, like theism.)

.............//snip

Gnostic in Greek means “knowledge.” In the Western world we know the term best from the early Christian movement called Gnosticism, which claimed esoteric knowledge of the workings of the universe. Such knowledge, Huxley pointed out, can be neither proven nor disproven. The Gnostics claimed to have “solved the problem of existence.” Huxley, however, wasn’t so sure of their untestable opinions. (Neither, it might be mentioned, was the Church so sure of their solution.)

...............//snip

This is not fence-sitting or vacillation. It is, rather, a commitment to the active search for what we can know. In this way it is much like the spiritual practice of via negativa, a method of removing those things that are not “god” in order to discover god.

I know this is putting a 'cat among the pigeons' for this board, a big, mean, battle-scarred alley cat; but, it's a viewpoint that isn't expressed often enough.

By the way, I do recommend this person's blog on Patheos: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/uucollective/author/davidbreeden/

[elleng]

1. I don't 'practice' agnosticism;

I AM agnostic.

[Htom Sirveaux]

2. What does "spirituality" mean to you personally? nt

[Trajan]

3. Your correct - it is poo ....

. o O ( Can I say that here ? )

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Maybe...

[bvf]

4. Why posit the existence of a supernatural being

to explain anything in this day and age?

"Commitment to the active search for what we can know"
needn't involve belief in imaginary beings.

I was agnostic for a while on my way to where I am now, but the more I thought to myself, "I don't know," the more I came to understand the above.

No wonder the constant science-bashing from many quarters.

[Silent3]

5. "Athiesm is a creed because it is a belief, like theism."

Wrong. Try again.

[Htom Sirveaux]

6. How would you analyze this hypothetical?

Someone says, "I don't know for sure whether there is a god or not, so I am agnostic. But I also believe there is probably no god, so I am an atheist. I am an agnostic atheist."

Is this person correct to call themselves an "agnostic atheist"? If so, would this person's atheism be a "belief", particularly since they used the words "I believe"?

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. That doesn't make it a 'creed'

a system of religious belief; a faith.
a formal statement of Christian beliefs, especially the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed.
a set of beliefs or aims which guide someone's actions.

The OED also gives a transferred meaning: "transf. A system of belief in general; a set of opinions on any subject, e.g. politics or science."
And in that case, agnosticism is as much of a creed as atheism, liberalism or materialism.

[Silent3]

9. I believe I'll have another cup of coffee.

That's more the sense of "believe" in "I also believe there is probably no god" than when people profess belief in deities and other "spiritual" concepts.

[Htom Sirveaux]

17. Could you expand on the distinction you are trying to make?

Not sure I understand yet, sorry.

[Silent3]

44. Yes, I could expand on this.

But I think what I said was pretty clear already, and pardon me if I'm misreading you, but I'm getting the sensation you're feigning misunderstanding for entertainment value.

[Htom Sirveaux]

45. You didn't identify the sense in which "belief in spiritual entities" was different than

"I believe I'll have another cup of coffee" and I wanted clarification on that point. What have I said or done to indicate to you that I'm playing around?

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. Do you really need that explained? (nt)

[Htom Sirveaux]

47. Yes, why?

It's not obvious to me why it's more appropriate to group "I believe there probably are no deities" with beliefs regarding coffee rather than with "I believe there is probably at least one deity."

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. because #12 explained it to you

There's a difference between 'believe in' and 'believe that'. English happens to use the same verb for both.

[Htom Sirveaux]

50. I try not to attribute one poster's stance to another, even if they are on the same "side"

unless that other explicitly adopts it.

[Silent3]

49. I'd say that religious and spiritual belief is, more often than not...

...about feeling that you know something for certain, rather than thinking it through and arriving at a tentative conclusion.

Oh, sure, many believers will often offer attempts at reasoning to support their beliefs, but I think this usually amounts to a way to explain to others what they believe. For the believers themselves, they're treating a "leap of faith" as if that leap is a particularly virtuous thing to do, or as if their belief (in God, in a specific doctrinal "truth&quot comes from some sort of direct way of being mystically plugged into the universe, so that Truth comes directly streaming into their minds or souls, with none of that troublesome need for evidence or reason to get in the way.

Why did I think you were playing around? Well, I wasn't all that certain you were, hence the way I phrased my last post, but something in the wording of your posts struck me oddly. Maybe with a screen name like "Htom Sirveaux" I'm predisposed to expect satire.

[Htom Sirveaux]

52. So if a believer denied doing what you said, would you accept that?

Or would you assume that they had successfully fooled even themselves into thinking they believed on the basis of reason?

[Silent3]

55. I imagine it's possible that there are religious believers...

...who believe in God (or whatever applies to their beliefs) in a way that's more like "I believe I'll have another cup of coffee".

I haven't run into one yet, however.

[Starboard Tack]

10. Depends on the individual, and not complicated.

For the atheist who believes there exist no god/s, it is a creed.
For the atheist who lacks any belief in the existence of god's it is no more than a state of mind.

A belief in a "probability" makes no sense.
Thinking it a probability means it is likely, but not belief worthy.

[Htom Sirveaux]

19. It sounds to me like "belief" has been promoted to the old status of "knowledge"

Knowledge used to connote certainty, and belief or opinion was uncertain. But now, the way you are using it, "belief" appears to mean "certainty" and "lack of belief" means "uncertainty".

Is any of that close to understanding what you were saying?

[Starboard Tack]

27. Yep. I think religious, or spiritual belief means certainty, without proof.

It's based on blind faith. Many Christians claim to know Jesus. Some claim to know that the Bible is the inspired, or even the actual, word of God. This is spiritual knowledge, not scientific knowledge. Subjective knowledge, not objective knowledge. Personal truth.

I don't think one can half believe something. Maybe I'm wrong, but either you believe or you think in terms of probabilities and possibilities, which means you're operating in the realm of doubt and uncertainty, not belief.

When I went through Confirmation into the Anglican Church, I knew I was being hypocritical and just going through the motions. No matter how hard I tried to believe, I couldn't. I learned the Creed, but when I recited it I was lying. It made no sense to me and still doesn't, and that was over fifty years ago.

There are other things that I do believe, which are unprovable, yet I feel certain about.

[Htom Sirveaux]

37. I would consider the matter differently.

Adding "spiritual" or "religious" to "belief" designates the subject matter of the belief, not the level of justifiable certainty attached to it. Regarding claims of Biblical inspiration, I would characterize those as "beliefs" since they are highly uncertain and controversial, to say the least.

I think you can believe something and still be open to the possibility of being wrong, especially when it's a "forced choice," meaning you'll end up living your life on the basis of your choice even if you have to make that choice before it can be made in a way that constitutes knowledge. Could your "unprovable, yet certain" things fall into this category, possibly?

[Starboard Tack]

42. Yes, my "unprovable" yet certain fits that category.

There is always the possibility of being wrong. That falls within my definition of "certainty", but there is no probability of being wrong, in the mind of the believer.
A "true believer", for want of a better term, will bet his soul on being right. I never got past the point of the possibility of there being a God creator. I really tried to move toward probability, but no luck. Doesn't make me feel any better or worse for it, superior or inferior. It just is what it is.

In terms of context, ie. the subject matter of the belief, it reminds me of a conversation I had many years ago on the subject of "blind faith".
If you open a door in your house, you expect to find certain things on the other side of that door, because you are familiar with your home and could navigate it blindly. So, if you were to be blindfolded immediately before opening the door, I think it fair to say that you would have faith in what you would find on the other side. This faith would be based on prior experience, not verifiable reality. Certainty, based on probability.

Now, if you have a parent or parental figure who nurtures you and instructs you, as a child, and that person earns your trust because they are always "right", then you begin to have faith in what they tell you and regard it as the truth. It is easy for a child to develop blind faith in such a person and in what that person tells you, until the day arrives when you find out that maybe it isn't true.

I was fortunate enough to not have parents who did stuff like that. In fact, they never discussed religion. They left it up to me and my brother and let us decide if we wanted to explore religious possibilities. Neither of our parents attended church, nor did our grandparents or great grandparents. They were all nominally Christian, but nobody ever talked about it. Christenings, weddings and funerals was about it. We sang Christmas carols and my mother taught me a couple of prayers to say before bedtime when I was really young. I enjoyed that, because it made me think of those I loved and wanted to be kept safe.

So, at the age of 13, I started attending church on my own, out of curiosity and the desire for a social life beyond the home and family. I enjoyed it and lapped up the rituals and sense of belonging. My vicar was a great guy, whom I respected. He also had two lovely daughters and a charming wife, which didn't hurt. We became close and I trusted him. He hadn't come to the ministry till the age of 40, having been a rebel all his life. He had been a coal miner and rugby player and a little wild. Then, at 40, he had a vision. His late father came to visit and told him he had a calling and he should follow it. He described this visitation in detail and I believed him, and still do to this day. But it was his vision, not mine. And no matter how much I tried to go with the whole program, I couldn't, but I never lost respect for those who could.

[Htom Sirveaux]

53. Interesting, I'm not sure I can conceive of someone "betting" their soul unless they are aware

of some probability of losing.
-
Thank you for sharing that history. Mine is somewhat similar. I wasn't raised with religion either, only I became very... insistent in my questioning about it towards my believing friends. I started spiritually seeking when I was 18, and got baptized around that time. That lasted about four years, then I went back to agnostic atheism for awhile.

Since that period I have come to see that at least one argument for the existence of God does work, in my opinion. I've never had any mystical experiences, although I have very much wanted to. In fact, that's how I met my wife: I was asking questions online about mystical experiences and she responded to tell me about hers, and we started talking. We've been together for four years total.

[cleanhippie]

32. Isn't Religious Belief simply just "another way of knowing"?

That idea has been put forth here by believers; religious belief IS knowing.

[Htom Sirveaux]

36. I've never said that, and I'm not adopting it now.

I think that knowledge and belief are distinct categories.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Wiki says you are likely misusing "belief in".

Belief-in

To "believe in" someone or something is a distinct concept from "believing-that." There are at least these types of belief-in:[6]
Commendatory / Faith - we may make an expression of 'faith' in respect of some performance by an agent X, when without prejudice to the truth value of the factual outcome or even confidence in X otherwise, we expect that specific performance. In particular self-confidence or faith in one's self is this kind of belief.

Existential claim - to claim belief in the existence of an entity or phenomenon in a general way with the implied need to justify its claim to existence. It is often used when the entity is not real, or its existence is in doubt. "He believes in witches and ghosts" or "many children believe in Santa Claus" or "I believe in a deity" are typical examples.[7] The linguistic form is distinct from the assertion of the truth of a proposition since verification is either considered impossible/irrelevant or a counterfactual situation is assumed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

(Spoiler alert, trigger warning, the next paragraph on belief in Wikipedia starts discussing delusions.)

An agnostic atheist is making an evidence based assertion using "believe", the evidence is lacking and so the atheist agnostic believes that there are no gods but allows that her belief could be wrong, based on new evidence falsifying that belief.

A theist has a belief in gods that does not require evidence, it is a faith based belief and is not subject to evidence based evaluation.

[Htom Sirveaux]

20. It comes back to the question of what qualifies as evidence.

That is probably the nub of the disagreement between the agnostic atheist and the theist. The "faith based belief" that is supposed to be salvific for Christian believers is not "God exists", so a theist could easily say that they believe that God exists based on the evidence (and they would probably have a different understanding of what qualifies as evidence than you do). "Believe in",as your quote from wikipedia noted, can also related to an expression of faith in the conduct of agent X, who is God in this case, and THAT'S the "faith" that saves.

[gcomeau]

57. I would say they hypothetically don't understand the terms they're using very well.

Much like the author of the article in the OP.

"I don't know for sure whether there is a god or not, so I am agnostic"

Wrong. That doesn't make a person an agnostic. Agnosticism isn't "I dunno". The word for that is "ignorance" not "agnosticism". Ignorance is not a philosophical position that warrants an -ism.

Agnosticism is THE BELIEF that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know. That the nature of deity renders certain knowledge about whether or not God exists unattainable.

[cbayer]

58. I don't think I have heard this quite like this and I like it very much.

The belief that it is impossible to know has a great appeal as a definition.

Thank you very much for that.

[gcomeau]

59. I'm torn in how to respond.

On the one hand part of me is saying to just say "you're welcome" and move on. But there's an incredibly frustrated voice ranting in my head that can't get past the title of that reply.

We have had, as I'm sure you will recall, a few run ins. Many of them involve me getting rather upset with you for not paying attention to what I write and you getting upset at me for 'condescendingly' insulting you for saying you're not paying attention.


cbayer, I have directly provided that definition to you many a time. For example, right here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=143380.

"Agnosticism requires a sophisticated evaluation about the claimed nature of deity in order to arrive at a conclusion that one believes that nature to render the acquisition of certain knowledge about whether said deity exists impossible to acquire."

The words are differently arranged, but it's the exact same definition.

Or here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121858424#post77

"It means "*can't* know"

If it meant "don't know" then you would be saying your philosophical position is literally "I dunno". a.k.a "I am ignorant on this topic".

You can be ignorant on a topic. I'm ignorant of countless topics as are all other people on the planet. But a state of ignorance is not an "ism" to be staked out as a philosophical position. It's just ignorance."

Again, the exact same thing I just said here with slightly differently arranged words.


This has usually resulted in you immediately arguing I'm wrong and/or lecturing me on how close minded presenting that definition of the term is, in ways that convince me you didn't really pay attention to what that definition actually said in the first place, and then off we go... as happened in both those linked cases.


Can you appreciate that you now stating you've never encountered this definition before and that it has "great appeal" might not be exactly convincing me I've been off base about you not paying any attention to the things I write when we have conversed in the past?

[cbayer]

60. Ok, sorry I responded to you at all.

Really.

[cbayer]

7. Well done and thanks for bringing it here.

Despite the wails and gnashing of teeth, agnosticism can be a thing all by itself.

It's only those that wish to divide the world into to camps that insist otherwise.

[LongTomH]

13. Thank you, sir!

[cbayer]

14. It's ma'am, but don't worry about that.

It didn't go badly and I hope that many took the time to read it.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Ugh. Agnostic Theist vs Agnostic Atheist.

Most atheist, even The Dawkins, are agnostic atheists. We accept that we cannot prove that that psychotic bastard Yahweh described in the O. T. Doesn't exist, or that hiding within the minute fraction of a second at the singularity isn't some creator entity. We just think that it is vanishingly unlikely.

[Lordquinton]

15. This sums up the article nicely

[LongTomH]

16. I don't feel superior to either atheists or fundamentalist Christians, and.........

.......I don't think David Breeden (author of the blog post) does either!

[Lordquinton]

23. "Athiesm is a creed because it is a belief, like theism."

Huge slam against atheists right there.

[cbayer]

26. OMG!! He pointed out a similarity between believers and non-believers!

Somebody call the purity police.

[Lordquinton]

29. No, he said there was one, which there isn't

If you actually listened to what non-believers said instead of making it up as you went along you'd know that pretty much every non-believer is agnostic (as has been stated over and over again)

At this point you're intentionally misrepresenting an entire side to feel superior, like the comic.

[cbayer]

31. I am fully aware that pretty much every atheist is also agnostic.

I am also aware that not every agnostic is an atheist.

[cbayer]

18. What a load. This doesn't say anything about atheists

let alone anything about them being annoying.

He's just talking about his own take on things.

I think the cartoon is more applicable to you than him. Just substitute agnostic for atheist.

[Lordquinton]

22. "Athiesm is a creed because it is a belief, like theism."

And I don't feel superior to anyone, unlike the person I'm replying too who actually does say that they think atheists are just as bad as theists.

[cbayer]

25. Calling something a creed is a slam?

I think it's just a POV. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't make it a slam.

Like I said, the cartoon applies more to you. You find any comparison at all to religious believers to be some kind of horrible attack. And you think you don't feel superior to anyone.

That's ludicrous.

[Lordquinton]

28. You're projecting

Atheism is not a belief, it's a lack of one, and the attitude that it is, but Agnosticism is no is the superior attitude.

I also like how when I say something it's merely a POV, but when you say something it's how it is, you know, that whole projection thing you do all the time.

[cbayer]

30. Projecting? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Atheism is all kinds of things, including what you say it is.

Agnosticism is also all kinds of things. No one said a single thing about one being superior to another….except you.

What is your definition of projection, btw?

[Htom Sirveaux]

21. Never mind, you answered the question.

I do not feel superior to atheists or agnostics.

[Lordquinton]

24. I don't, but the article feels that way

thus the comic summing up the author's agenda.

[rogerashton]

33. This is timely

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-between-godliness-and-godlessness.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

[cbayer]

34. I posted that earlier as it's own thread, but it got little attention.

It's a very interesting take on this whole issue.

Thanks for bringing it into this discussion.

[LongTomH]

39. I agree with Cbayer, an excellent addition to the discussion.

I could easily identify with this paragraph:

I’m not casting a vote for godlessness at large or in my own spiritual life, which is muddled with unanswered and unanswerable questions. I’m advocating unfettered discussion, ample room for doubt and a respect for science commensurate with the fealty to any supposedly divine word. We hear the highest-ranking politicians mention God at every turn and with little or no fear of negative repercussion. When’s the last time you heard one of them wrestle publicly with agnosticism?

I've been 'wrestling' with agnosticism since escaping my small-town, fundamentalist, pentecostal upbringing.

[carolinayellowdog]

35. I just listened to a talk by an agnostic who had gone through two heresy trials

This was part of the Forum program at the Winston-Salem UU Fellowship about which I posted so positively my first impressions a couple of weeks ago. On the plus side, it was fascinating and moving to hear the "confessions" of retired Moravian Church pastor Truman Dunn that his agnosticism had led him through two heresy trials in which he was found guilty. THIS from the first Protestant denomination, whose founder Jan Hus was burned at the stake after... a HERESY TRIAL. On the negative side, in the discussion I was unfavorably impressed by the one outspoken UU theist and the several outspoken atheists, all of whom were openly intolerant towards the agnostic. The tone of voice from both factions was cantankerous, opinionated, dogmatic, not at all what I consider appropriate to a spiritual fellowship. Agnostics seemed to be in the solid majority however.

[LongTomH]

38. Thank you for this post! It's a worthy addition to a real dialogue!

By the way, a friend tells me I should drop in on a UU service.

[carolinayellowdog]

40. Thanks for posting-- this hits very close to home for me as I just found myself attacked

One of the dangers of any author Googling his own name or the titles of his books to see what new citations have appeared-- finding total misrepresentations and antagonistic personal remarks. For me, last night, it was finding a brand new book from a now-deceased author presenting me as an antagonistic "atheist" rather than a noncommittal "agnostic" about a particular historical issue.

That left me feeling that those who are "filled with passionate certainty" just DON'T GET open-minded inquiry and never can and never will. And even in a UU congregation where most of the members are probably in the same boat as me, my main memory was the mean-spirited absolutely certain???? theists and atheists ruining the atmosphere of mutual respect. (If they are really so fucking certain as they say they are, why do they go around looking to bully others?)

[Htom Sirveaux]

41. I did an OP on agnosticism v. agnostic atheism not too long ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218143734

I'd love your feedback on it, if you want to give it.

[carolinayellowdog]

43. thanks, I found much of the commentary obnoxious/oblivious

To me "whether or not there is/are a god or gods in the universe" is just a stupid BS question as uninteresting as discussions about angels and demons. Rather, "is there a dimension of life and the universe that explains/justifies my feelings of awe and worship, and if so, what is it?" is the question of interest.

Theists and atheists seem so determined to bully others into line rather than interrogate themselves that I'm getting more and more of a "fuck all y'all" reaction to the whole thing.

[Warpy]

51. You lost me at " (Athiesm is a creed because it is a belief, like theism.)"

No, it's the honest admission that there is no evidence to support a belief in god or gods.

There is no "there" there. It is not a creed. It is not a belief. It's the absence of those things.

[Major Nikon]

62. Certainly lost me as well

But I'm of the mind that once I encounter obvious bullshit I tend to stop reading at that point.

[longship]

54. I find these arguments about labels a bit silly.

Especially the so-called agnostic vs. atheist one. It rarely comes to any resolution because it inevitably descends into an argument on rhetoric, which is what it really is.

Yup! Gnosis means knowing. So agnostic means not knowing.

Theism means believing in gods. So atheism means not believing.

It is very simple. The two terms are orthogonal. One can be an agnostic atheist, which at least one in this thread has observed.

Why can't we put this silly argument to rest once and for all?

I do not malign people for what they believe. I don't give a fuck what people believe. However, I do very much care when they put those beliefs into action.

It is their actions and their words to which I object, not the number of gods in which they believe.

[CosmicMemory]

61. Monotheistic particularism leads to violence?

A very interesting article by Kennith W. Krause in Skeptic: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/15-01-14/#feature

The concluding line of the conclusion:

In conclusion, none of this would seem possible in the absence of religious devotion to an allegedly all-powerful god.