Is Agnosticism a Cop-Out? (Christians, choice, atheist, agnostic)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I claim myself to be agnostic, but I definitely drift more towards atheism. My personal view is this. Religion and the concept of god as we know it is a completely man-made idea. However, I hold the belief that we haven't figured out how our universe works and what drove it into existence in the first place. Many of these questions will probably never be answered as it just isn't possible to prove. So whether there is some natural force driving the universe or everything is a chaotic accident, we really don't know and won't ever know.
Whether this view makes me truly agnostic, I don't know.
I'm basically in the same position as you. I claim myself as Agnostic on the fence. However, I don't really believe in the Biblical God(aka the Christian God).
The God of western religions is a complete anthropomorphic projection of our humanity onto the screen of the cosmos; Of that, I am completely atheistic (and of a separate *Being* outside of creation).
As to a governing intelligence or consciousness that permeates all of creation; To that I am agnostic (but lean in that direction). I consider myself more panendeistic.
Last edited by trobesmom; 10-06-2009 at 08:51 PM..
Is agnosticism a cop-out? No, I don't think so. I see it as an honest assessment of one's pondering of the "god" question. It bothers me to an extent when hard-core atheists basically say, "you know you're really an atheist, just admit." To me this is no different than the Fundamentalist saying, "You know you're a child of God, just admit it and accept Him as your Lord and Savior." Each person has to work out this question for themselves and in their own time. I would also say to hard-core atheists, that when agnostics are holding to the possibility of a god, this does not necessarily mean that we are considering the existance of the Judeo-Christian or Islamic god. For myself, this is true. I think that if a god of some sort exists, it is nothing like the one we have been told about. Its nature must be beyond what we can even comprehend.
I am agnostic and say so as I honestly don't know if there is "something greater than us" out there or not. For me to take a position on it one way or another makes no sense.
I definitely hold the possiblility of something beyond us as I cannot resolve certain things. For example, I believe in the Big Bang. I accept the existance of an unimaginably small and dense singularity that expanded to what we know as the universe. The evidence is there. But, what I cannot reconcile is what made this singularity? What, if anything, surrounded it? What kind of "space" did it occupy? To say that it was "just there" makes no more sense than the explanations we receive from Christians concerning the the origins of their god ("He was just always there").
I do not know if there is a god, but I do know that if it exists, it isn't what any of man's religions tell us it is.
This is a good point and it is really the 'which god' question. I'd put it like this: you are an agnostic theist because you believe that 'something' must have dunnit. You call that 'something' 'god' and I presume (I don't know) that you ascribe some sort of intelligence involving some kind of planning ability.
That is certainly enough to be a theist and indeed I'd say that, if you buy into that, 'agnostic' becomes almost an irrelevant term as you have as good reason to believe as the atheist has not.
In fact, I agree that this is such a good case that I'd say that we are very much on the same page. It is only because I don't see any evidence for a personal god that I'm atheist.
I can't rule out a Deist 'god' of the kind you contemplate. Nor can I rule out a naturalist explanation, because we just don't know.
However, the Deist god can be left it its own devices, whatever it is as praying to it seems futile and worshipping it pointless. And I gather that you'd concur as you don't buy into any of the humanocentric personal gods or their religions.
That to me is enough to be atheist. I don't 'know' there is no god and I don't know what dunnit. atheism is not (despite Webster's theist- derived definition) 'denial' of 'God' but seeing 'belief' as unjustified and irrelevant. There is simply no need to be 'agnostic'. Such god - belief as that entails is as irrelevant as belief in an alien civilisation on another galaxy.
The definitions of atheism and agnosticism are ambiguous and inconsistent, but I feel it is best to use these definitions:
Agnosticism: believing we can't know whether god(s) exist(s)
Atheism: Not having theistic beliefs
So if you realize that we can't know for sure, but you believe anyway for whatever reason (maybe Pascal's wager got to you), then you are an agnostic theist. If you are like most people claiming agnosticism, and you are withholding belief because you realize we can't know, you would be an agnostic atheist.
The general (traditional) concept of agnosticism is flawed, because you can't really sit on the fence or "half-believe".. you either believe or you don't.
If you want an example of an agnostic Christian, see VictorianPunk's posts. He realizes his belief in God could be wrong, but believes anyway because he wants to (Ironically he calls himself a Gnostic Christian, but the point is the 'knowing he can't know' idea applies to his beliefs).
Good post. I agree that one can either believe or not. One can be an agnostic believer (theist) or an agnostic non- believer (a- theist)
Since agnosticism is by definition not - knowing (about God) believing in what one does not know is illogical.
That's pretty much what I was getting at in my post above. Even if one was pretty sure a Deist non- personal god existed, belief might not be illogical, but it would be rather irrelevant.
Neverless one could not honestly say that they were 'atheist' if they had become convinced of some sort of first cause or deist god. I can say I'm atheist because I'm not prepared to place such faith in made made law as 'nothing can come from nothing' when we are talking about a wider universe which,for all we know is packed with black holes churning out dark matter made from void.
I don't think it's possible for most Christians to be agnostic, although you do have to wonder why faith is so important to many of them. I mean, shouldn't they always know when it comes to their God and his ways.
Thanks. I was going to mention that those who claim to 'know' are opting for a preferred explanation, there are others. Personal experience is prettly much understood as a mix of one's own consciousness, working up religion and a need to 'have something more in your life' (1). So personal experience of god is, on all evidence, self - delusion. That a churchful of people get together to agree on the form that their delusion should take makes it no less delusional.
Quote:
I don't think choosing to be an agnostic is a cop-out, although for me personally I don't see a point in it.
That seems to me the essence of the 'cop - out'. If one is either unsure about a god or pretty sure it isn't personal god, then there is no point in being theist except as an intellectual standpoint. The 'god debate' becomes irrelevant.
As an atheist I have agued this; the First cause/deist god argument is irrelevant and so is the evolution argument (pretty much the same thing, actually) The argument should be and usually is about 'Which god'. Should one buy into any one of the religions?
If one looks at the evidence and finds it not worth a damn, then that's enough to be an unbeliever to the extent that I am an unbeliver. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a 'first cause'/deist god. I do disbelieve in any of the personal gods on offer. That's enough to make me an atheist and that's why I suggest that an agnostic not going that far is not getting to grips with that issue. Perhaps 'cop -out' is a bit too perjorative.
(1) that term was the operative one in a book I read on why people became Moonies. It is a major factor in people's need for religions, cults or crazes.
(3). My question about the compatability of agnosticism and religions was poorly worded, perhaps. I certainly wouldn't call agnosticism a religion and was not grouping it with religions. I was grouping Christianity with other religions and asking whether a religious person could be agnostic, as well.
It would seem a Christian could not hold the position that there is insufficient evidence about whether there is a God. My question concerns whether there are other religions that you can think of that might acknowledge that the existence of God is unknowable. Perhaps varieties of spiritualism? As it happens, Drummerboy's above post is exactly the type of discussion I was asking about.
Buddhism and more philosophical forms of Taoism either are agnostic or allow for agnosticism. From what I've read many of the world's Buddhists believe in God or gods, but in pretty much all cases I know of those God(s) did not arise from Buddhism itself. They were pre-Buddhist gods of those peoples and Buddhism was in some sense "agnostic" on them. Some see Buddhism as just atheistic, but I think agnostic would often be closer to right.
If you deem Confucianism a religion it would also allow for agnosticism and atheism. I know some Confucians valued the ancestors and rituals more for a kind of "psychological" reason than a belief in gods or spirits. For that matter even if they literally believed in the spirits of the dead I think, in the literal senses of the term, they could still be agnostic or atheist. I read of a guy who believed in the afterlife, but not any God or gods. I think he thought the "soul" was just some natural life entity and that when you died you became the happy phantom. (To paraphrase Tori Amos)
This is a good point and it is really the 'which god' question. I'd put it like this: you are an agnostic theist because you believe that 'something' must have dunnit. You call that 'something' 'god' and I presume (I don't know) that you ascribe some sort of intelligence involving some kind of planning ability.
That is certainly enough to be a theist and indeed I'd say that, if you buy into that, 'agnostic' becomes almost an irrelevant term as you have as good reason to believe as the atheist has not.
In fact, I agree that this is such a good case that I'd say that we are very much on the same page. It is only because I don't see any evidence for a personal god that I'm atheist.
I can't rule out a Deist 'god' of the kind you contemplate. Nor can I rule out a naturalist explanation, because we just don't know.
However, the Deist god can be left it its own devices, whatever it is as praying to it seems futile and worshipping it pointless. And I gather that you'd concur as you don't buy into any of the humanocentric personal gods or their religions.
That to me is enough to be atheist. I don't 'know' there is no god and I don't know what dunnit. atheism is not (despite Webster's theist- derived definition) 'denial' of 'God' but seeing 'belief' as unjustified and irrelevant. There is simply no need to be 'agnostic'. Such god - belief as that entails is as irrelevant as belief in an alien civilisation on another galaxy.
Arequipa, I would say that you are spot on of your assessment. I certainly don't buy into the concept of the personal god. That statement that I am an agnostic theist is pretty much correct as well. I think there is 'something', but I honestly have no idea of what it is. I contemplate this question a lot.
I've ruled out the, as you so well put it, humanocentric personal gods. Because I cannot resolve this (especially in light of what I know of science), I simply express my agnostic theism through the vehicle of my Comanche culture.
Oddly enough, it is very Comanche to take such a position. To put it simply, we traditionally have often been designated as the "skeptics or unbelievers of the plains." We have comparatively few well-established visible or externalized customs of religious meaning such as seen among other tribes like the Lakota or Hopi (for example). We have no dogma or professional priestly class and therefore never formulated any kind of systematic religion. Our beliefs are very individualistic. There is a wide range of thought and beliefs amongst us. If you were to talk to ten different Comanche (for those willing to talk about these things anyway), you would get ten different answers!
Buddhism and more philosophical forms of Taoism either are agnostic or allow for agnosticism. From what I've read many of the world's Buddhists believe in God or gods, but in pretty much all cases I know of those God(s) did not arise from Buddhism itself. They were pre-Buddhist gods of those peoples and Buddhism was in some sense "agnostic" on them. Some see Buddhism as just atheistic, but I think agnostic would often be closer to right.
If you deem Confucianism a religion it would also allow for agnosticism and atheism. I know some Confucians valued the ancestors and rituals more for a kind of "psychological" reason than a belief in gods or spirits. For that matter even if they literally believed in the spirits of the dead I think, in the literal senses of the term, they could still be agnostic or atheist. I read of a guy who believed in the afterlife, but not any God or gods. I think he thought the "soul" was just some natural life entity and that when you died you became the happy phantom. (To paraphrase Tori Amos)
I was thinking about the same thing and you put it into very nice words And we all know who that guy was: Casper, the friendly ghost.
Arequipa, I would say that you are spot on of your assessment. I certainly don't buy into the concept of the personal god. That statement that I am an agnostic theist is pretty much correct as well. I think there is 'something', but I honestly have no idea of what it is. I contemplate this question a lot.
I've ruled out the, as you so well put it, humanocentric personal gods. Because I cannot resolve this (especially in light of what I know of science), I simply express my agnostic theism through the vehicle of my Comanche culture.
Oddly enough, it is very Comanche to take such a position. To put it simply, we traditionally have often been designated as the "skeptics or unbelievers of the plains." We have comparatively few well-established visible or externalized customs of religious meaning such as seen among other tribes like the Lakota or Hopi (for example). We have no dogma or professional priestly class and therefore never formulated any kind of systematic religion. Our beliefs are very individualistic. There is a wide range of thought and beliefs amongst us. If you were to talk to ten different Comanche (for those willing to talk about these things anyway), you would get ten different answers!
I would certainly not have a problem with that. I say I have a problem with the 'God' label but it's a problem I'll withdraw on the addition of a rider 'god meaning whatever it is that is behind it all all, whatever that is or is not.' Or something.
I can be pretty positive about cultural stories and traditional legends so long as we don't get attempts to forge links between legends and science.
I had one Hindu bod who was constantly trying to paste hindulogical labels of the scientific concepts. What's the matter with the scientific terms? I asked. Why complicate matters by replacing with terms like 'Brahma' which then have to be explained? I couldn't shake the suspicion that it was a way of trying to slide hindu - theisms under the laboratory door.
Apparently your Hindu friend couldn't relate to the scientific terms very well and had to couch them in familiar terminolgy. Unfortunately, doing that sorta defeats the whole purpose of having scientific terms!
Sure, I enjoy legends and mythology as long as the attempt isn't made to transform them into reality and live according to them. I think of the tall tale of Jesus as being somewhat like that of Paul Bunyan.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And we all know who that guy was: Casper, the friendly ghost.
