The Astral Pulse
News: http://www.astralpulse.com/aup.html. Acceptable Use Policy for the forums. Please read and ensure that you respect these policies. Thank you.

If you wish the join The Astral Pulse, please create an account and then email myself or one of the moderators your username and email address (do not send us your password please) and we will activate your account for you. 
If it's been over 24 hours and you still haven't been approved, please send another email, we are just people too and sometimes we get busy.
http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welcome_to_astral_chat/member_registration_requiring_approval-t42962.0.html

We apologize for any inconveniences this may cause, but it's the last resort we have to fighting the spam for now.
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. July 05, 2020, 22:10:05


Login with username, password and session length


Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Agnosticism  (Read 2729 times)
Astralbermudian
Astral Energy 1
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


View Profile Email
« on: January 17, 2006, 23:12:38 »

Well the first time I ever heard of this religion was a few weeks back when I had recently dropped Christianity for personal reasons and it just captivated me, I tried researching it but for some reason, the school blocked it....that's messed up but oh well. Um It would be great if the response to what it is is simplistic yet in detail. That would help greatly  embarassed
Logged
Phasor
Astral Energy 1
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2006, 01:10:15 »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Logged
The Astral Pulse
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2006, 01:10:15 »

logoVisit the website of Astral Pulse creator Adrian Cooper.

Home of the best selling book Our Ultimate Reality.

Astral Projection, Metaphysics and many other subjects.

 Logged
Astralbermudian
Astral Energy 1
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2006, 01:56:59 »

lol thanks but it was blocked. Just got my mom to put it all in a txt document and ship it over msn, thanks man
Logged
CFTraveler
Guest
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2006, 02:51:22 »

What school is that?
Logged
Astralbermudian
Astral Energy 1
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17


View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2006, 23:23:18 »

felsted. some rich school in uk
Logged
The Astral Pulse
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2006, 23:23:18 »



 Logged
Gandalf
Astral Energy 5
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1459



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2006, 02:19:30 »

um, agnosticism is not actually a religion, its more of a point of view. I think there is some confusion here!

Doug

PS Two other point I find disturbing are: a) that you you had never heard of the point of view known as agnosticism, which to be honest, outside of bible belt areas is pretty much most people's point of view even if they don't always admit it, and b) that your school tried to block it.
Logged

"It is to Scotland that we look for our idea of civilisation." -- Voltaire.
CFTraveler
Guest
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2006, 02:28:28 »

Did you get your question answered?
Logged
no_leaf_clover
Astral Energy 5
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1759


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2006, 09:31:53 »

Agnosticism isn't much concerned with answering the "God" questions, or at least doesn't care to commit to any particular answers. (If I would call myself anything, it would be agnostic, and I don't even like the term "God" to begin with.)

I think the major difference between a Christian and an agnostic, is that the Christian is a bit more hard and fast with their silliness than the agnostic would ever be.

An agnostic might tell you straight up, "dunno," or "doesn't matter to me," while a Christian will usually maintain that s/he must be fundamentally right, with no room for doubt (and I suppose this is what they call "faith" - and not having it is a no-no Smiley ).
Logged

What is the sound of no leaves cloving?
cainam_nazier
Astral Energy 5
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1269



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2006, 10:33:35 »

Quote
a) that you you had never heard of the point of view known as agnosticism, which to be honest, outside of bible belt areas is pretty much most people's point of view even if they don't always admit it


Actually most of the people I run into will flat say that they don't believe in God.  Not so much that they don't know.  I actually believe that most people are atheist going on the lack of evidence as to the reason they don't believe.  There are actually very few people that I know that fall into the true agnostic definition.

Quote
An agnostic might tell you straight up, "dunno," or "doesn't matter to me," while a Christian will usually maintain that s/he must be fundamentally right, with no room for doubt (and I suppose this is what they call "faith" - and not having it is a no-no Smiley ).


This is one of the things I find funny when I tell people that I have no faith.  Most will ask the question, "What if you are wrong?".   The reason for holding to my belief is that it really doesn't matter.  Either God doesn't exist and it doesn't matter or God does exist and I am doing what I was intended to do.  So to me arguing it becomes pointless when one can never fully know the answer.
Logged

Gandalf
Astral Energy 5
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1459



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2006, 23:56:57 »

Good point, and to answer those who say 'but what if you are wrong', I would say, well if I'm wrong then god, if he is really all he is cracked up to be, god of unconditional love etc, he is not going to punish me just because i didnt happen to choose the correct brand of religion.

if they turn round and say 'well god might punish you for that' then i would say that their god is not the sort of god that is worth believing in, he's just a vindictive creten who does not deserve any kind of respect at all: i would rather burn in his hell rather than bow to his dictatorial, despotic demands, all of which stangely enough paint an all too human picture of 'god' and only goes to provide further evidence of us creating god rather than the other way round.
Logged

"It is to Scotland that we look for our idea of civilisation." -- Voltaire.
Jonathan
Guest
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2006, 03:08:38 »

Here's the Article from Wikipedia Astralbermudian:

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of a god, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life. The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion. The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge). Agnosticism, focusing on what can be known, is an epistemological position (dealing with the nature and limits of human knowledge); while atheism and theism are ontological positions (a branch of metaphysics that deals with what types of entities exist). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism.

Agnosticism is distinct from strong atheism (also called positive atheism or dogmatic atheism), which denies the existence of any deities. However, the more general variety of atheism, weak atheism (also called negative atheism, and sometimes neutral atheism), professes only a lack of belief in a god or gods, which is not equivalent to but is compatible with agnosticism. Critical atheism admits that a god or gods are meaningful concepts but the evidence for them is not in hand, so a default position of not believing in them must be taken in the interim.

Agnostics may claim that it isn't possible to have absolute or certain spiritual knowledge or, alternatively, that while certainty may be possible, they personally have no such knowledge. In both cases, agnosticism involves some form of skepticism towards religious statements. This is different from the simple irreligion of those who give no thought to the subject.

Variations

Agnosticism has suffered more than most expressions of philosophical position from terminological vagaries. Data collection services [1], [2] often display the common use of the term, distinct from strong atheism in its lack of disputing the existence of deities. Agnostics are listed alongside secular, non-religious, or other such categories.

Other variations include:
Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.
Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until more evidence is available.
Apathetic agnosticism—the view that the whole question of God's existence or nonexistence cannot yet be properly answered, and therefore one should free oneself from a fruitless search.
Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. See scientific method.
Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.
Agnostic theism—the view of those who do not claim to know God's existence, but still believe in his existence. (See Knowledge Vs Beliefs) Whether this is truly agnosticism is disputed. It might also imply the belief that there is something resembling god (or gods,) but a doubt of their exact nature or validity of claim.
Agnostic spiritualism—the view that there may or may not be a god (or gods,) while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any doctrine.
Agnostic atheism—the view that God may or may not exist, but that his non-existence is more likely. Some agnostic atheists would at least partially base their beliefs on Occam's Razor.
[edit]

Some philosophical opinions

Among the most famous agnostics (in the original sense) have been Robert G. Ingersoll, Thomas Henry Huxley, and Charles Darwin. Some have argued from the works of David Hume, especially Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, that he was an agnostic, but this remains subject to debate.
[edit]

Thomas Henry Huxley

Agnostic views are as old as philosophical skepticism, but the terms agnostic and agnosticism were created by Huxley to sum up his thoughts on contemporary developments of metaphysics about the "unconditioned" (Hamilton) and the "unknowable" (Herbert Spencer). It is important, therefore, to discover Huxley's own views on the matter. Though Huxley began to use the term "agnostic" in 1869, his opinions had taken shape some time before that date. In a letter of September 23, 1860, to Charles Kingsley, Huxley discussed his views extensively:
I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter. . . .
It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions. . . .
That my personality is the surest thing I know may be true. But the attempt to conceive what it is leads me into mere verbal subtleties. I have champed up all that chaff about the ego and the non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all the rest of it, too often not to know that in attempting even to think of these questions, the human intellect flounders at once out of its depth.

And again, to the same correspondent, May 6, 1863:
I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.

Of the origin of the name agnostic to describe this attitude, Huxley gave (Coll. Ess. v. pp. 237-239) the following account:
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

Huxley's agnosticism is believed to be a natural consequence of the intellectual and philosophical conditions of the 1860s, when clerical intolerance was trying to suppress scientific discoveries which appeared to clash with a literal reading of the Book of Genesis and other established Jewish and Christian doctrines. Agnosticism should not, however, be confused with natural theology, deism, pantheism, or other science positive forms of theism.

By way of clarification, Huxley states, "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" (Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889). While A. W. Momerie has noted that this is nothing but a definition of honesty, Huxley's usual definition goes beyond mere honesty to insist that these metaphysical issues are fundamentally unknowable.
[edit]

Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell's pamphlet, Why I Am Not a Christian, based on a speech delivered in 1927 and later included in a book of the same title, is considered a classic statement of agnosticism. The essay briefly lays out Russell’s objections to some of the arguments for the existence of God before discussing his moral objections to Christian teachings. He then calls upon his readers to "stand on their own two feet and look fair and square at the world," with a "fearless attitude and a free intelligence."

In 1939, Russell gave a lecture on The existence and nature of God, in which he characterised himself as an agnostic. He said:
The existence and nature of God is a subject of which I can discuss only half. If one arrives at a negative conclusion concerning the first part of the question, the second part of the question does not arise; and my position, as you may have gathered, is a negative one on this matter. (Collected Papers, Vol 10, p.255)

However, later in the same lecture, discussing modern non-anthropomorphic concepts of God, Russell states:
That sort of God is, I think, not one that can actually be disproved, as I think the omnipotent and benevolent creator can. (p.258)

In Russell's 1947 pamphlet, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic? (subtitled A Plea For Tolerance In The Face Of New Dogmas), he ruminates on the problem of what to call himself:
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

In his 1953 essay, What Is An Agnostic? Russell states:
An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

However, later in the essay, Russell says:
I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence.

He didn't say "supreme" or "supernatural" intelligence: these terms are metaphysically loaded.

For Russell, then, agnosticism doesn't necessarily assert that it is in principle impossible to know whether or not there is a God. Moreover, "An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists."
[edit]

Logical positivism

Logical positivists, such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer, are sometimes thought to be agnostic. Using arguments reminiscent of Wittgenstein’s famous "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent," they viewed any talk of gods as literally nonsense. For the logical positivists and adherents of similar schools of thought, statements about religious or other transcendent experiences could not have a truth value and were deemed to be without meaning. But this includes all utterances about God, even those agnostic statements that deny knowledge of God is possible. In Language, Truth and Logic Ayer explicitly rejects agnosticism on the grounds that an agnostic, despite claiming that knowledge of God is not possible, nevertheless holds that statements about God have meaning. This position, however, is valid only in the case of agnostics who define their agnosticism in this fashion. Ignostics define agnosticism in a manner consistent with the logical positivist view, holding theism to be incoherent.
[edit]

References
Collected Essays, Thomas Huxley, ISBN 1855069229
Man's Place In Nature, Thomas Huxley, ISBN 037575847X
Why I Am Not a Christian, Bertrand Russell, ISBN 0671203231
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume, ISBN 0140445366
Language, Truth, and Logic, A.J. Ayer, ISBN 0486200108
Logged
The Astral Pulse
   



 Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums


The Astral Pulse Copyright 2002 - 2014
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM