Blogstream   -   Create a Blog!   -   Login Chat   -   Options   -   Clean   -   Flag   -   Family Filter: Off   -   Recent   -   Rndm >>    

Blogstream  >  Religion  >  Blog  >  Post #18376
  
Agnosticism = Intellectual Honesty

Monday November 21, 2005

 Agnosticism = Intellectual Honesty
Back to Full Blog  

Although I believe the evidence for a naturalistic worldview is quite strong, thr truth of the matter is that there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. Belief in any supernatural realm or entity is purely a matter of faith.
Posted by Agnosticus Fides at 11:08 AM - 21 Comments   Add a Comment  
  Hide Post  
Next Post
 
Comments:

Did you mean "agNosticism", and not "Agosticism?" Just thought you might want to know.  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by Nathan (PM , CC ) on Monday November 21, 2005 @ 12:15 PM
To an intellectual, I guess that would be true. But even an intellectual has faith. When you sat on that chair, with out thinking about it, you just believed it would hold you up. It takes more faith to not believe in the spirit realm than anything else.  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by Rosie (PM , CC ) on Monday November 21, 2005 @ 4:15 PM
People believe chairs will hold them up because they have tested chairs throughout their lives and learned that chairs will hold them up. It is not a matter of faith that a chair will hold you up, even though, sometimes they do not. That is an oft used arguement for faith and one that means absolutely nothing. As for it taking more faith to not believe in the spirit realm, that is wholey (not holy) a matter of opinion. It is what you believe to require more faith. You cannot speak for all. For me it takes much more faith to believe in the spirit realm. It always has. I contend I was born an atheist (you can use the term weak atheist as I do not claim to know everything) and also believe that all people are born this way. If not introduced to religion a child would not form a belief in God. This means man's natural state is not one of a belief in God and leads one to believe that in actuallity belief in the spirit realm would require more "belief" than "non-belief", I believe... What?  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by The Vessel (PM , CC ) on Monday November 21, 2005 @ 6:33 PM
One more thing...While I don't agree with your point of view, I will say that I find agnosticism to be much more intellectually consistent and honest to reality than athiesm is.  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by Nathan (PM , CC ) on Monday November 21, 2005 @ 7:34 PM
There is a significant difference between sitting in my chair believing it will hold me up and believing in the supernatural. In fact, the nuances are so many that it boggles my mind to even consider beginning to name them. In brief, however, I believe a chair will hold me up because I have sat in many chairs that have held me up (indeed, that is what chairs are made to do). Thus, when one does not, I am surprised and shocked. Belief in the spiritual realm is simply not the same. Unfortunately, "God" has not been nearly as dependable as the average chair. People pray and they never know if their prayers will receive a YES or NO (or, as Christians like to default to: a MAYBE). While you consistently expect a chair to "say YES" when you sit in it, asking God for things is a toss up. I trust chairs because they have earned my trust. God, if such an entity exists, simply has not.  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by Agnosticus (PM , CC ) on Monday November 21, 2005 @ 8:48 PM
Vessel: I would tend to agree with you on most of what you said. However, as for whether or not someone would not choose religion if never introduced to it, I'm not so sure. I mean, obviously, religious tendencies emerged in human development over our evolutionary history at some point. I tend to think (based upon things I've read) that religious ideas and spiritual thinking in general arose in human thinking due to several factors. Our intellectual capacity, as it developed, eventually made us more aware of death -- both of ourselves and our loved-ones. The belief in an afterlife was (and is) a way to deal with our knowledge of the finality of death. Even "hell" is a way of reconciling the lack of justice in this world that vexes us so. (All this, though Pascal Boyer in his book "Religion Explained" has a different take on why religious ideas are a by-product of the evolution of the complexity of our brains). Basically, I suppose I only mean that it is possible that religious-type ideas (re: afterlife, gods, etc...) might be something that happened as a product (or by-product) of our evolutionary journey as homo sapiens. Thus, perhaps, no one would need to introduce someone to religious beliefs in order for them to somehow arise in human thinking. Just a thought... :-)  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by Agnosticus (PM , CC ) on Monday November 21, 2005 @ 10:30 PM
I know that this is often a cliche point, (but as was said the chair analogy really doesn't work very well), the beginning of the universe works to prove that faith is required in any viewpoint. Whether you believe God created everything out of nothing, or that God created everything with the Big Bang, or that the universe created itself with the Big Bang. Faith is needed for all of these. Whether it is faith in God, or faith in some Big Bang singularity. If a person puts their faith in God they will go to heaven, if a person puts refuses to put their faith and belief in God they will be condemned to hell. This Big Bang singularity faith whether it is, or is not true, cannot save you if it is false.  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by nhbneil (PM , CC ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @ 12:52 AM
nhbneil: Thanks for your comment. What you mentioned sounds suspiciously like "Pascal's Wager": If you DON'T believe in God and God DOESN'T exist, you lose nothing and you gain nothing. If you DO believe in God and God DOES exist, you gain all. If you DON'T believe in God and God DOES exist, you lose all. So your best best is to believe in God. ---- There are many problems with this rationalization, however. First, it leaves open the question of God's nature (or perhaps there are many gods?). What does God expect of me? Only to acknowledge his existence? What if I believe in the WRONG God? Is God the Christian God (as Pascal would believe) or the God of some other religion...or no religions...or all religions? On and on we could go with various aspects and qualifications. When it is all said and done, statistically it is more risky to believe in some God (or gods) and be mistaken in some important aspect of your beliefs than not to believe at all...or better yet, to remain undecided on the issue for lack of solid evidence (agnosticism). I'm not sure how God (if God exists) could blame me for suspending my judgment on the matter when there is such conflicting evidence. But if God does...well, all I can say is "I was trying to be intellectually honest" and just be condemned for it I guess. Doesn't sound like a very graceful and understanding god that would condemn me for using the brain he (or she or it) supposedly gave me. ----- As for the beginning of the universe and faith, well, that all depends on what you mean by "faith". Believing that the universe began doesn't take faith (since we're obviously here). Just HOW the universe began is shrouded in mystery to be sure, but scientists don't claim to know just how that happened. There are theories, sure, and many scientists flesh out their theories of cosmic origins in books and papers, but they are still only theories. The point is, they don't have to default to divine action as the genesis of the cosmos just because they don't know how it was caused. They may put "faith" in some of their theories, but their theories are mathematical and inferential in nature, not religious in the supernatural sense. Belief that some divine being was the cause of the beginning of the universe is a matter of personal preference. The fact that scientists don't know something doesn't automatically provide proof of divine action or for the existence of a God or gods.  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by Agnosticus (PM , CC ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @ 9:52 AM
Agnosticus: Yes. I tend to agree that religious beliefs are probably a product of evolution. They obviously arose from somewhere. At some point someone who was never introduced to religion had to have conceived of the idea. However, it makes more sense to attribute this to a desire for knowledge and understanding than an actual innate need for religion. Religion in and of itself seems more a byproduct of not understanding than something we are born with. This is evident in the way religions have changed throughout history and the way religions vary between different groups. Of course, we seem to be saying the same thing with only a few minor differences. My contention was that we are not born believing in God. It is not a genetic trait. Thus Atheism would seem to be man's natural state and I would have to put upon the religious the burden of proof as opposed to putting it upon the Atheist.

Nathan: To say I am an Atheist is not to say that I can say positively there is no God. Agnosticism says that one cannot say either way. An Atheist or a weak Atheist, as I would more readily label myself, says that there is no evidence to support a belief in God and therefor belief is not a logical conclusion. In other words, while I cannot completely rule out the possibility, I cannot see the belief as having any credibility. 		 
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by The Vessel (PM , CC ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @ 11:52 AM
Vessel: Yeah...sometimes I'm not sure whether to label myself an agnostic or a weak-atheist. I tend to lean toward atheism, as I too suspend my belief in a god or gods due to lack of compelling evidence. However, I suppose because I just can't say for sure, I default to agnosticism. There is a fine line between weak-atheism and agnosticism...or are they just 2 sides of the same coin?  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by Agnosticus (PM , CC ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @ 12:00 PM
The faith in sone singularity exploding, that I refer to would be the faith that such a supermassive singularity could explode without the intelligent guidance of a supreme being to be the cause of the explosion. --- As far as we are (in this reference) concerned we are refering to a singularity like a black hole with the combined mass/energy/particles of this universe squashed together into some composition of subatomic particles that couldn't even exist in this universe as it is now, possibly not even in the center of supermassive black holes. Which is in my opinion what those who subscribe to the Big Bang singularity refer to when they call it a singularity.--- So the faith that such a singularity could have created itself and then exploded by itself is in essence a faith just the same as the faith necessary to believe in God creating the universe out of nothingness. --- Therefore the necessity of some sort of faith in any creation scenerio.  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by nhbneil (PM , CC ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @ 5:50 PM
Well...I would have to disagree -- at least insofar as the difference between a natural or supernatural origin of the universe is concerned. I do not disagree that a supernatural force could have been the cause of the origin of things...but that is a matter purely of personal preference. As for me, I lean toward naturalistic explanations simply because naturalistic explanations have been so succesful in explaining natural phenomena. This is an area shrouded in mystery. It may never be understood. But when it comes to being something upon which to base one's entire worldeview, I don't find the origin of the universe to be strong enough of an issue to make me lean toward theism.  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by Agnosticus (PM , CC ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @ 6:04 PM
If by naturalistic explanations, you are possibly meaning evolution, that would require a faith of sorts also. That requires the faith that random combinations of matter (starting from the basic primordial ooze with random chemical groupings, of nonliving matter) can evolve into organized living matter without any intelligent guidance of any sort. --- Which even a lot of evolutionists are now conceeding is hard to believe. Not to mention that because of the gaps present in the evolutionary family tree, the very possibility of actual evolution is held in question. --- This is one of the reasons why I feel intelligent design/guidance is gaining such a foothold even in the secular community. --- As you can possibly guess I am a proponent of intelligent design/old earth, (God creating the universe and the earth over a long period of time). ----As opposed to the young earther philosophy where they say God created everything around 6000- 10,000 years ago.  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by nhbneil (PM , CC ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @ 6:50 PM
nhbneil -- with all due respect to your opinion, I have read Behe, Dembski, Johnson and others like them. I have also read several of the top evolutionists writings for the popular audience (Mayr, Dawkins, Ehrlich, ...and you should REALLY read Kennith Miller's book, "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" -- it will educate you on the horrible anti-evolution propaganda promoted by the religious right and the validity of biological evolution... Miller is a dedicated CHRISTIAN by the way and a biologist). In my opinion, the evidence for biological evolution comes out on top by a landslide. Evolution is truly the best attested (and most controversial) scientific theory of history. I am most certainly NOT an ID proponent, though I most certainly used to be. After I examined the evidence independent of Christian propaganda, I was amazed to find that evolution is so incredibly well supported by the evidence.  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by Agnosticus (PM , CC ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @ 7:12 PM
Agnosticus: When you say ---quote: Unfortunately, "God" has not been nearly as dependable as the average chair. People pray and they never know if their prayers will receive a YES or NO (or, as Christians like to default to: a MAYBE). While you consistently expect a chair to "say YES" when you sit in it, asking God for things is a toss up. I trust chairs because they have earned my trust. God, if such an entity exists, simply has not. :end of quote--- I personally have a problem there also, I am broke and unemployed because after 16 years working for Red Lobster they unfairly fired me 3 weeks after I got back from knee surgury. I cannot find a job which will pay me close to what I was paid before. ----I am a little bitter sometimes that it seems like the "world" helps non-christians more than God helps His own Christian followers. I am often reminded that a Christian should not feel this way about God but sometimes you just cannot help but feel that way. Often we hear that God helps us in His own time table, But when a person has thought of "giving up" for a long time already, it is so hard to think that God's timetable could mean His help could still be years from now.  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by nhbneil (PM , CC ) on Tuesday November 22, 2005 @ 7:23 PM
Happy Thanksgiving to all of you. May God bless you all also.  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by nhbneil (PM , CC ) on Thursday November 24, 2005 @ 2:59 AM
exactly.--ice  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by Icemelts (PM , CC ) on Thursday November 24, 2005 @ 10:32 AM
SCREWUP/i understand you need proof to believe that their is a God. a heavenly father a grand creator. for example, when we radio we cannot see the waves or what ever it is that gives the results that we want. but we know it is out there. radio waves are not tangible. our heavenly father, has sent us a book called the Bible. you will say that man wrote the Bible how can this be true. think of the men who wrote as the Bible as the radio. God inspired these men to write his message to us. the radio brings us certain infro as well. what man can give such laws that is good for us. there were more than 10 laws given to moses and the nation. these were were given to them for their own good. there are laws that tells what food are good for us, laws on cleannes, ect, you must get to know our heavenly father. according to Ro 1:28.  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by screwedup (PM , CC ) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @ 7:59 PM
Dear "ScrewedUp": Thanks for your comments. I understand your statements about the Bible and those responsible for its writing. You position on the matter, though, one of faith. You *believe* the writers were being used by God in some way as they wrote. You are certainly within your epistemic rights to believe that. Someone else is equally within their rights not to. However, in general, (just kind of a F.Y.I.) such analogies (i.e., the radio analogy) might be helpful in trying to explain your beliefs, but they will do little to convince another to believe like you do. Analogies convey how you understand things but do not offer any kind of evidence or persuasive argument for why I should also see the Bible like that.  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by Agnosticus (PM , CC ) on Saturday November 26, 2005 @ 10:26 PM
I really enjoyed your site, keep on posting. Thanks, The Sovereign Post  
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by The Sovereign Post (PM , CC ) on Wednesday December 14, 2005 @ 1:07 AM
Now that you have allowed yourself to think freely have you discovered critical scholarship yet? It will resolve any doubts you may still have about Christianity.
Why is it that a Bhudist can see the nonsense of the Koran, the Muslim can see the nonsense in Christianity and Christians can see the silliness in the Bagad Vita but none of them can get beyond his indoctrination to see that his own mythology is as silly as any of the others? 		 
|<   <<   >>   >|

 
by nobullthinker (PM , CC ) on Monday March 27, 2006 @ 5:46 PM


  Add a Comment
Back to Blog  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
  About Me
Author: Agnosticus Fides
 
This blog is about...
For anyone who wishes to discuss evidence for or against the existence of God. It is meant to be a... more
 
My: Profile  Guestbook  100 Things 
 
Bookmark   History

  Blogstream Sponsors
Have you checked out the new Blogstream site,

Question Stream.com?

Many Blogstream members are there already! Quotes from members: "It's like blog lite!" -- "I like the instant gratification!" -- "Stop spectating, get in the game!"

If you have not joined in, you are really missing out!

Send Free
Just Saying Hi
Greeting Cards at

Greeting Cards.com


Good Morning


  Recent Posts
...more

  Blogs I Like

  Archives

825 Visitors