An Agnostic Metaphor

[Straw Dog]

By agnostic, do you mean undecided, withholding belief pending evidence, or a belief that the existence of God cannot be known?

More the former in terms of suspending judgment in light of the vastness of information and possibilities. I’m comfortable with uncertainty. I can entertain the possibility, but don’t know if the existence of a god can be know.

 

[Straw Dog]

I used to identify as agnostic. I gave that up for a couple reasons, but I only want to highlight one of them.

It's a given that human capacity for knowing is limited. This applies to everything, whether it is a theological question or not.

It is also a given that we have to live our lives under these limits. At some point, we have to settle on some stories to tell ourselves as we cannot function without doing so. It's not a "leap of faith" to recognize that, it's simply practical and necessary. And keeping to your own narratives doesn't have to mean doing so at the expense of other stories either. You can still have your stories and acknowledge the validity of other people's stories. You can be honest with yourself about your experiences - take a gnostic approach - while also acknowledging the limits of your own knowledge. Agnosticism procrastinates doing the work of being discerning. I trust myself to be discerning, and thus I abandoned agnosticism.

I’m not married to the term. It just seems to be the most descriptive at this time. We can live without labels.

I can see how identifying with one possibility doesn’t necessarily come at the expense of all others. There’s still room for pluralism in a worldview. Only some possibilities negate all others. I can discern a few basic beliefs in my case, namely self-determination and universal equality of life. At least that’s the story I tell myself.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I’m agnostic. Some think this means I’m a seeker. Others say I’m
sitting on a fence with only two sides.

I view it more as a wall, the limit of human knowledge. The wall reaches higher and stretches farther than any single individual can see. Every brick is data. Every section of the wall is information.

An individual can only focus on very little information while needing to ignore most of it. Mostly focusing on the Biblical information will encourage a Biblical worldview. Focusing on the information in the Qu’ran will reinforce a more Islamic worldview. Besides any single book is an unfathomable amount of more information that will never be learned.

If information overload wasn’t enough, beyond the wall are unlimited possibilities only constrained by the limitations of human imagination. To take a leap of religious faith beyond the wall of knowledge means identifying exclusively with only one possibility at the expense of all others.

So I’m agnostic because of the limitations of knowledge, the vastness of information, and the infinite possibilities beyond. I suppose this metaphor is somewhat similar to the blind men and the elephant.

How does your faith treat agnosticism and the limitations of human knowledge? Is it important to discern between what we know, what we don’t know, and what we merely believe to be so?

Everything you wrote suggests that you are an atheist. An atheist simply lacks a belief that there is definitely a god or gods. If you claim that there isn't sufficient knowledge to concluded that there definitely is a god, then you lack such belief and you are an atheist. You seem to think that the atheist position is that they believe that there definitely are not any gods, and that's simply not so. There are atheists who lack belief in any gods who take it a step further and declare that they believe there definitely are no gods, but that in itself is not an atheistic position.

 

[Straw Dog]

Everything you wrote suggests that you are an atheist. An atheist simply lacks a belief that there is definitely a god or gods. If you claim that there isn't sufficient knowledge to concluded that there definitely is a god, then you lack such belief and you are an atheist. You seem to think that the atheist position is that they believe that there definitely are not any gods, and that's simply not so. There are atheists who lack belief in any gods who take it a step further and declare that they believe there definitely are no gods, but that in itself is not an atheistic position.

That’s right. I’m agnostic-atheist. I don’t know. I don’t think so. I enjoy entertaining possibilities, though.

I just wanted to focus on the knowledge axis with this metaphor. It seems to represent more common ground for interfaith discussion.

 

[QuestioningMind]

That’s right. I’m agnostic-atheist. I don’t know. I don’t think so. I enjoy entertaining possibilities, though.

I just wanted to focus on the knowledge axis with this metaphor. It seems to represent more common ground for interfaith discussion.

You're an atheist. Why are you throwing 'agnostic' in there as well?

An agnostic doesn't know whether or not they believe in a god or gods. An agnostic looks at the evidence and at times it seems sufficient for belief, but at others it seems insufficient to warrant belief. An atheist simply says at this point in time there is not sufficient evidence to warrant belief.

 

[Straw Dog]

You're an atheist. Why are you throwing 'agnostic' in there as well?

An agnostic doesn't know whether or not they believe in a god or gods. An agnostic looks at the evidence and at times it seems sufficient for belief, but at others it seems insufficient to warrant belief. An atheist simply says at this point in time there is not sufficient evidence to warrant belief.

Do the labels really matter if other people can still understand the meaning of my perspective?

I don’t actively hold a belief in a god, but I don’t know about the existence of all possible gods.

 

[Valjean]

The primary definition of agnostic is the belief that the existence of God is unknowable. "Undecided" sounds more atheist.
This is what I was trying to sort out with my question in post #6.
agnostic

 

[Jos]

I gave that up for a couple reasons, but I only want to highlight one of them

What's the second reason if you don't mind me asking? Maybe it could challenge my position

Agnosticism procrastinates doing the work of being discerning.

No it doesn't, agnosticism, at least how I see it, is a position of humility recognizing that humans are fallible and untrustworthy when it comes to spiritual things and theological questions. It's not about procrastination, since that implies that it's about avoiding something that needs to be done, when in fact there's nothing that needs to be done. I don't have to find the answers even if I want to.

I trust myself to be discerning, and thus I abandoned agnosticism

And how exactly are you being discerning if you just chose to believe something rather than evaluating it and other positions to determine what's true? Humans clearly aren't good at discerning spiritual truth from falsehood given that there are so many conflicting religious beliefs... they can't all be right, so what makes you think you can discern truth?

 

[Brian2]

Hence my skepticism about a human ability to know anything about deity...

If you agree that knowledge about God would need to come from God and that means belief in a revelation, it seems to me that might mean that you should be skeptical about your ability to know anything about deity because you do not have a belief in a revelation. Nevertheless people who have a belief in the right revelation could have that ability.
Are you saying that you are skeptical because you do not believe any so called revelation is from God?

 

[Brian2]

But that never happens.
It's always some human claiming to be God's Spokesman.
And one thing I'm very sure of is that humans are very prone to delusion.

Jesus claimed that but gave evidence in the form of miracles and rising from the dead and fulfilling OT prophecy concerning the Messiah. Much of that OT prophecy no doubt went in the face of what the Jews were expecting of their Messiah, but looked at from the perspective of being outside of Judaism it can be seen as convincing that it was about the Messiah. I guess it comes down to a belief that the gospel stories are telling us the truth.

No, it requires a belief in human authority.
I don't find humans all that trustworthy, by and large.
Tom

It also needs belief in a God or possibility of a God and willingness to check out the possible revelations and why they may be from God.
In the case of the gospel it comes down to seeing that Jesus is the one whom God promised and so to whom He gave the authority to be His spokesman. As I say, there is evidence for this.

 

[Brian2]

More the former in terms of suspending judgment in light of the vastness of information and possibilities. I’m comfortable with uncertainty. I can entertain the possibility, but don’t know if the existence of a god can be know.

How many possibilities are there really? Either there is a God or there is not. Looks like 2 to me.
It sounds like you are overwhelmed by the number of human claims and so do not know where to begin to look for God.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Worth reading. Few will.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

If you agree that knowledge about God would need to come from God and that means belief in a revelation, it seems to me that might mean that you should be skeptical about your ability to know anything about deity because you do not have a belief in a revelation. Nevertheless people who have a belief in the right revelation could have that ability.
Are you saying that you are skeptical because you do not believe any so called revelation is from God?

No. I do not "agree that knowledge about God would need to come from God and that means belief in a revelation." If you took that from my earlier posts, I apologize for not being clear.

I am skeptical because I doubt that any human can tell the difference between a real or fake revelation, or an illusion, or whatever other source there could be. Revelation is of course possible, just appears to be a very weak source of knowledge about the nature of deity.

there could in theory be testable empirical knowledge about god/gods, but I am still skeptical of the human ability to draw any certain conclusion from such observations.

 

[Brian2]

there could in theory be testable empirical knowledge about god/gods, but I am still skeptical of the human ability to draw any certain conclusion from such observations.

If fulfilled prophecy is reason to see the work of a God in certain scriptures then that would be a start and could produce a belief in those scriptures as a source of knowledge about God.
Maybe fulfilled prophecy is not testable empirical knowledge but it certainly can be reason to believe in a God and source of knowledge about that God.

 

[Valjean]

If fulfilled prophecy is reason to see the work of a God in certain scriptures then that would be a start and could produce a belief in those scriptures as a source of knowledge about God.
Maybe fulfilled prophecy is not testable empirical knowledge but it certainly can be reason to believe in a God and source of knowledge about that God.

But anyone can find 'fulfilled prophecy' in anything. People find patterns and connections all the time where there are none. It's apophenia. It's clearly not reliable.

Many cultures and religions have seers and prophets. Are they all right? Did Nostradamus really foresee all the things that have been attributed to him? Was Cortez really the return of Quetzalcoatl?