Aggressive Agnosticism

[dextrorfan]

I've noticed most people who consider themselves agnostics aren't really very proud of the label, mostly because it's usually seen as a sort of cop out; an excuse not to have to come to terms with existence etc. But i'm starting to wish more of us would speak out, because when you get right down to it it's the most pleasant disposition to have, really. So I'm going to do that a little.

Just to make a little connection to the philosophy of Taoism, one of the primary things Lao Tzu was talking about was that you can never truly understand the nature of existence, and that the first step on the path to knowledge or whatever was to understand this basic fact. Anyways what I'm trying to get at is, even with all the scientific prowess we've gained and will continue to gain, there will never be a way for us to truly cognicize the nature of "isness", or the universe itself. I'm sure atheists and whatnot will want to bring up quantum mechanics, string theory, or whatever the latest attempt to explain away existence is, but where would it all have come from in the first place? Why was there a playing field for the chain of events to even happen?

This is bringing me to why agnostics accept that there totally could be a god, and some of us even think something along those lines is very likely. For instance perhaps we are actually just individual parts of that entity becoming aware of itself, and that god is the universe itself. I like to think just that when I'm tripping balls sometimes, pantheism's sexy you know. Or perhaps the Deists are right, who knows, that kind of makes sense. The truly wonderful thing about agnosticism is that you don't have to commit to any one thing, and you can relate to everybody, because you realize all viewpoints are valid!

 

[RobotRipping]

i'm not ashamed of the label, i don't really consider myself anything, if there's a God that'd be cool, if not that's fine too, and anything in between is possible. I do think it is naive to take one side or the other and cling to it with your life and fight off whoever disagrees with you; there's just no way we can know right now and maybe there will never be a way to know.

There's not much to say other than that, i can't convince nor want to convince anyone to be agnostic because it is the most reasonable approach or anything, people can believe in whatever they want.

 

[Jabberwocky]

For instance perhaps we are actually just individual parts of that entity becoming aware of itself, and that god is the universe itself.

Never thought of it like this, or maybe I have but haven't been able to describe it. Well done.

 

[dextrorfan]

^ Thank you, it's a nice way to think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism is a good article on that general philosophy, kind of, At least the bit about the universe itself being god. I think the part about us humans being the universe becoming aware of itself is a conclusion people have come to while tripping or something, and really fits in nicely with that cosmological view. It's like we're the individual brain cells of god, or perhaps the individual parts of a single brain cell, what have you.

 

[L2R]

we must defeat those hostile neutrals!

 

[Abject]

When you walk past a bin, do you think there might be a leprechaun waiting to jump out?
I feel the belief in god is similar to believing that. There's little evidence, though it's possible. Kind of like schrodingers cat, except it's not both dead and alive, it's either.
Your awareness of something does not change the reality of things, so I'm very apathetic towards the whole thing.
God or no god, it has no effect on me.
I'm against religion for the sole reason of it being filled into people at vulnerable times, but I've no problem with others merely believing in something.
It's when the dogma starts affecting people who aren't affiliated with said religion it becomes an issue.
Anti-theism, it's the new atheism.

 

[dextrorfan]

Abject: This is absolutely the sort of rhetoric I'm talking about, not trying to say you're wrong or anything, but let's just consider this for a minute. The thing about it that so many atheists or "anti-theists" miss, or at least ignore, is the fifth step of Aquinas's god proof (the first way):

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm

The universe can't have just somehow farted itself into existence, there is some shit we don't understand going on here, and I'd like to posit that we'll never really be able to understand it. If we think we're understanding it though, through religion or what have you, I feel we're just bullshiting ourselves, sorry to be harsh but that's just what I think. But at the same time religious folks are in a sense on the right track because they are accepting their essential inability to understand the universe by believing in God.

 

[Shrooms00087]

^
That is mostly in relation to Aristotelian.

 

[malakaix]

The universe can't have just somehow farted itself into existence,

Why not? Imagine that, our evolution.. the result of a fart the void slipped out

there is some shit we don't understand going on here, and I'd like to posit that we'll never really be able to understand it.

You have to ask yourself, would you ever be absolutely satisfied with an answer or would it just beg another question. Its a paradox, it's why it can't be understood.. when you see it you accept that you will never understand it, but not in the sense of feeling defeated, but realizing you know by not knowing. It's fucking hilarious.. there serious when they say life is one big cosmic joke.

This also dissolves all identification.. because you see You dont actually exist beyond your own ability to imagine yourself. So there's no need for this "Im this label" nonsense.. your everything and nothing wrapped up in an endless paradox. Yay!

 

[rangrz]

God has no explanatory power. It's just infinite regress. If the universe could not have formed from just a fart out of the void, well, how did God get formed? Same problem.

The distinct lack of evidence for a God, both in the lack of any direct observance of one, plus the general fact that most everything can be modelled either as a dynamical system, or else as a probability distribution that obeys some set of equations, it seems that God either does not exist, or else, God does not do sweet fuck all and can therefore be treated as irrelevant and non-existent anyway. The third possibility is that God really does control the entire universe, but simply made up a set of equations and follows them without fail. Again, this makes a God nothing more than an un-needed extra abstraction with no explanatory or predictive power and again, can be safely ignored or treated as irrelevant/non-existent.

 

[Abject]

Exactly, apathy towards the whole thing is the way to go.
There is no evidence, sense, nor reason to believe otherwise.

 

[RobotRipping]

lol apathy or love

i agree with the scenarios rangrz points out and the conclusions. I intuitively feel that the 3rd example is the one that is true, and i intuit this through the extreme use of psychedelics and particularly DXM. hardly evidence but it's what i am inclined to believe, that or its all meaningless, either way.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

What you can say from empirical evidence is, that there can't be a god who is loving and omnipotent. So nobody can defend its agnosticism regarding the "classic" concept of god, as an omnipotent and loving creater of the universe.

There may not be a compelling theodicy, but you can't claim theodicies don't exist. I think they deserve to be looked at, then you can attempt a proper refutation, at least.

 

[illustrious junk]

Aggressive anything is annoying imo. People should be allowed to come to their own conclusions; pushing one's beliefs onto others never works anyway.

most everything can be modelled either as a dynamical system, or else as a probability distribution that obeys some set of equations, it seems that God either does not exist, or else, God does not do sweet fuck all and can therefore be treated as irrelevant and non-existent anyway.

Exactly; most everything can be mathematically modelled, but not everything (at least yet). What about consciousness/awareness itself?

Imo there are two branches of knowledge; one that is accessible through application of logic, which reveals truths about physical reality (maths/science), and another, accessible through direct experience only, that reveals truths about ourselves and does not (at least yet) lend itself to scientific analysis (spirituality, for lack of a better term). I don't understand why so many proponents of the former seem to think it mutually exclusive with the latter (not singling you out rangrz, though I'd be interested to hear your views).

I respect science infinitely but it doesn't, and I doubt it ever will, answer all our questions.

p.s. I'm not religious & definitely don't believe in 'God' in the traditional sense. Sorry for going off-topic btw.

 

[rangrz]

Consciousness has begun to yield itself to science and mathematical modelling. Neuroscience and psychology are making big inroads.

I think everything at some point can modelled by a set of equations. That we don't know those equations yet, or that they may be absurdly computationally intensive to solve, does not mean that everything is not just emergent from the 4 fundamental field forces and 16 elementary particles (17 if you add the Higgs) and the equations that they obey.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Can you give an example of how consciousness has begun to yield itself to science? And throw in a mathematical model to prove it, for good measure.

 

[rangrz]

http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html

 

[Tromps]

God has no explanatory power. If the universe could not have formed from just a fart out of the void, well, how did God get formed? Same problem.

God is the only the explanatory power for our universe. Our universe is cause and effect, science proves that something has to cause and effect something else.

Saying the universe created itself is a contradiction to the laws of the scientific universe. According to science it takes something to create, cause and effect, another something.

Something had to of created the universe, by those laws of science and we can observe it in our own existence.

The best we can understand that something to be is a higher power - God.

God formed all creation and the universe. The laws within God's creation and universe, physics, science, mathematics and equations that hold this universe together, they don't apply to Him. He created them.

God has is own nature. He is above all things and created all, understanding the nature of God we won't know in this life as we are not God and we are not equipped to understand His infinite power. A different set of 'laws' or 'rules' may apply in God's Kingdom; who knows. How God was formed, is there, etc, all of that we may understand after this life.

The third possibility is that God really does control the entire universe, but simply made up a set of equations

Yes, everything in our universe holds itself together within the laws of physics and science through a set of logical equations that keeps everything binding and held together in existence.

Einstein once said the mind of God would be pure logical mathematical thought and equation.

 

[Psyduck]

Yes, everything in our universe holds itself together within the laws of physics and science through a set of logical equations that keeps everything binding and held together in existence.

Einstein once said the mind of God would be pure logical mathematical thought and equation.

Of course, he was referring to the Spinozistic impersonal God, which in practice can be equated with Natura Naturans.

 

[dextrorfan]

"Aggressive anything is annoying imo. People should be allowed to come to their own conclusions; pushing one's beliefs onto others never works anyway."

Yeah I hear you, I just thought the alliteration was sweet, a catchy title. Just trying to start a dialogue about agnosticism because there aren't many since most of us aren't very outgoing about it as we don't have anything to prove. It's just such a nice way to be, it's great because all of these sides, the religious guy throwing out theistic apologetics as well as the atheist likening Jesus to a Leprechaun, seem totally valid, and leave your brain open to all these possibilities.