Agnosticism vs. Atheism

[Master Vigil]

I respect Lao Tzu's wisdom, and I believe that his wisdom much surpassed mine. Therefore, I believe what he said can help to lead me to my understanding of the Tao. I am not an evangelical Taoist, I am only a man who enjoys teaching the philosophy of the Tao to others online, and in person. But to teach it, I must study it thoroughly and have done so for many years. I am not a religious Taoist, I only live my life according to the Tao and the spirits around me. The spirits actually is not part of my taoist thought. That is another part of my spirituality. So you have "none," but to say none makes it an object of your thoughts. Which makes "none"... "one." And depending on how many ideas of "none" you have, that would make it "some." So instead maybe you should contemplate on the idea the soundless sound, or the numberless number. Even though the sound of one hand clapping is not a sound, it is something. Therefore it is not "none." You criticize me for claiming to know the Tao, yet you say that the Tao tells me where I should be. How would you know this then? And actually, the Tao allows me to understand myself and where I should be. It doesn't tell anything. I learn about the Tao from within myself. A Taoist knows all he must know. No more, no less. Above all, a Taoist must keep his "don't know mind." And understand that what one does not know, must be the unknowing Tao. My name is not a way to be egotistical, it was simply a play on Master Jedi. And I've never acknowledged that logic to be flawed, I only recognize my don't know mind. And I understand that logic is logic, and even if I don't know what the universe is doing exactly, that doesn't make my logic flawed at all. Eat your rice, wash your bowl is simply a koan that allows one to understand simplicity. I had a zen master ask me what that meant, all I said was "my fork is clean, let's eat." And he smiled and gave me a pillow to sleep on that night. And wisdom is the process of understanding that things CAN be artificially obscure or inscrutable. Wisdom comes from the understanding that "wisdom in itself" is obscure or inscrutable.

 

[Master Vigil]

Well then, show me where there is more than the eternal and natural Tao. I am not eager to name the attributes of the nameless. I only say what Lao Tzu himself said. It's right in the Tao Te Ching. Don't find humor in me, find humor in him then.

Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao.
Names can be named, but not he Eternal Name.
As the origin of heaven and earth, it is nameless.
As the Mother of all things, it is nameable.
So, as ever hidden, we should look at its inner apects.
As always manifest, we should look at its outer aspects.
These two flow from the same source, though differently named.
And both are called mysteries,
The mystery of mysteries is the door of all essence.

Chapter 1 - Tao Te Ching

Therefore, the eternal Tao (origin) is nameless. But the natural Tao (mother) is nameable. The hidden must be looked at inside you, and the outer can be seen in nature. And these two flow from the same source. So therefore, taoists are able to name the attributes of the nameless. Lao Tzu says so.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Eat your rice, wash your bowl is simply a koan that allows one to understand simplicity.

Well done. It's easy to demean a koan. :clap:

 

[Runt]

But Master Vigil, I have to side with Deut. 32.8 on this point, at least with the logic of his argument. Taoists say that the Eternal Tao is unknowable. As an unknowable entity, which can be described with no words, we should not be able to define the attributes of the Eternal Tao. Yet we do. The Tao Te Ching describes the attributes of the Eternal Tao. It says in my copy of the text that the Eternal Tao is "the eternally real...darkness within darkness...the gateway to all understanding" (1), "like a well: used but never used up...like the eternal void: filled with infinite possibilities...hidden but always present...older than God" (4), "like a bellow: it is empty but infintely capable" (5), and so on and so forth. Here Lao-tzu describes something that should be undescribable... and yet even these attempts to define the Eternal Tao as something that is undescribable, incomprehensible, or unknowable, are still reliant upon verbal attributes that describe concepts that we humans can conceive of and describe. So I would argue that we truly don't know what the Eternal Tao is... and any attributes that we apply to it only apply to the Natural Tao, for that is the part of the Tao that we can understand and the attributes we previously assigned to the Eternal Tao are attributes that we understand used to describe something that we don't understand...which doesn't work, because it shouldn't be able to be described at all, even to say that it is "undescribable".

It does make us look like hypocrites to say that the Eternal Tao cannot be described and then to describe it... however, I would say that instead it is a paradox that demonstrates how undescribable the Eternal Tao really is... that every value we assign to it is not accurate because we understand those values and we don't understand the Eternal Tao.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hi, Mr_Spinkles. What are your views on "Agnosticism vs. Atheism"?

Hi Deut. I think agnosticism/atheism come in shades of gray. Some agnostics simply say "I have no idea whether or not there is a God" and leave it at that. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who say "I know for a fact that there is no God (spirits, etc)".

The problem with agnosticism is it's seen as "playing it safe" or "straddling the fence". The problem with atheism is when one claims to know something with 100% certainty (even the non-existence of God/spirits/whatever), that is basically a religious beleif. I consider myself an atheist, because I think the probability of God not existing is very high. But I would never claim to know this (or anything) with 100% certainty.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The problem with agnosticism is it's ...

Good morning, Mr_Spinkles.

Perhaps the problem lies in the selectivity of the definition. In my opinion, one of the really great sentences is: The map is not the territory. We can argue forever about the proper definition of words, but the game of dueling dictionaries accomplishes little. It is also fairly easy to set up straw men to critique. Clearly, there is a form of agnosticism indistiguishable from equivocation, much as there is a form of atheism indistiguishable from dogmatism. But beating down these straw men seems less than satisfying.

So, where does that leave us? I suggest that

• agnosticism addresses what we know, or what is knowable, while
• atheism addesses what we believe, or what is believable.

The terms address different (disjoint) domains: there is nothing to preclude a coherent agnostic atheism or agnostic theism.

Now, let's look at a couple of examples. These are not offered as representing "the true definition" but, rather, as reflecting philosophically viable definitions.

The term agnosticism was coined by Huxley, who wrote:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
-- Agnosticism, 1889

One form of atheism is the stance that insufficient compelling evidence exists to warrant a belief in Deity. As we learn more and more, and as the potential territory for some 'God-of-the-Gaps' progressively diminishes, the case for philosophical naturalism strengthens:

The known world expands, and the world of impenetrable mystery shrinks. With every expanse, something is explained which at an earlier point in history had been permanently consigned to supernatural mystery or metaphysical speculation. And the expansion of scientific knowledge has been and remains an epistemological threat to any claims which have been fashioned independently (or in defiance) of such knowledge. We are confronted with an asymptotic decrease in the existential possibility of the supernatural to the point at which it is wholly negligible. ...
-- Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism by Doctor Barbara Forrest

Returning to the topic of this thread, I see those quotes as wholly compatible, as is the stance taken by the Agnostic Deist or Agnostic Fideist.

Take care.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I only say what Lao Tzu himself said. It's right in the Tao Te Ching. ... Lao Tzu says so.

So there! :mrgreen:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It does make us look like hypocrites to say that the Eternal Tao cannot be described and then to describe it ...

Good morning, Runt. I don't think it makes you look like hypocrites. I think it makes you look like members of a pattern-matching species naturally uncomfortable with the patternless, i.e., with cognitive gaps. At some level the God-of-the-Gaps and the Tao-of-the-Gaps seem indistinguishable - and the gaps are shrinking.

 

[Master Vigil]

One koan that took me almost a year to figure out was...

A master was sitting by the forest drinking tea. A monkey suddenly came down out of the forest and started drinking tea with the master. It was then that the master politely asked the monkey, why have you chosen to drink tea with me here when there are many fine fruits for you to choose from in the forest? The monkey quickly threw the tea in the masters face.

What does this mean?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What does this mean?

Zen monkeys don't play games with evangelical masters.

 

[Alaric]

What does this mean?

Perhaps:
That the master insulted the monkey by assuming it needed a special reason to do drink tea with him instead of doing what the master arrogantly assumed the monkey was 'supposed' to be doing.
Or:
The master arrogantly assumed that the monkey was actually drinking tea with him, when in fact it was just a monkey drinking tea it spotted, which then got startled when the seemingly passive creature nearby started making noises.

That is, don't label people, or, be careful you don't just see what you want to see.

 

[Runt]

Maybe the monkey scorned the master for not taking his own advice? The master asked the monkey, "Why have you chosen to drink tea with me here when there are many fine fruits for you to choose from in the forest?" Well... why is the MASTER drinking tea when there are many fine fruits for HIM to choose from the forest?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Deut--

I definitely agree. The two terms are compatible. So Deut, are you an agnostic atheist?

 

[Master Vigil]

Ah deut, I guess you're knowledge of koans is not what you wanted it to be. Runt, you are the closest, I guess my first hint is... why do masters drink tea, and why do monkeys eat fruit?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deut--

I definitely agree. The two terms are compatible. So Deut, are you an agnostic atheist?

Yes, Mr_Spinkles, I am.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good morning, Master Vigil.

Ah deut, I guess you're knowledge of koans is not what you wanted it to be.

Why would you presume to know what I want, Master Vigil? Let me suggest a far easier koan, but one that could contain its share of enlightenment: what is the sound of off-topic pedantry from an Evangetical Taoist?

 

[Master Vigil]

How do I know the ways of the world, by what is within me. The Tao is what I do not understand. Once I know what I do understand, I then know what I do not. That is the natural Tao helping me. But, since the Tao is complete balance. The more I know, the more I do not understand. So I do not believe that the gaps are shrinking.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Jeez Deut, you seemed so polite at first....now it seems like you're "after" certain people for no apparent reason.

 

[Master Vigil]

Hey deut, don't be angry if you can't figure out the koan. I know you said it was easy to demean a koan, yet you seem unable to do so. Therefore, maybe you should not attack what you do not understand, or is that your only way of dealing with it. Maybe the humility should be within the attacker?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jeez Deut, you seemed so polite at first....now it seems like you're "after" certain people for no apparent reason.

What did you find impolite, Mr_Sprinkles?