Agnosticism Discussion

[Aeran]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

As far as I can tell it seems that the only real major difference between us is that I feel that it's reasonable to extrapolate from personal experience into a broader acceptance of the concept of divinity.

Otherwise I think I've mostly said everything I have to say on this particular subject. If you're that eager to debate me you can always start another feminism thread

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

As far as I can tell it seems that the only real major difference between us is that I feel that it's reasonable to extrapolate from personal experience into a broader acceptance of the concept of divinity.

Do you think other people's personal experiences give them proof of god? Going back to the evangelical church "healing" example, do you think their experiences mean that the Christian path is Truth? When you claim to know the truth about something that means there is no room for other possibility, and you think that human experience is important enough in this giant multiverse we inhabit, to warrant Truth about god?

To me, it's the height of human arrogance to assume that your personal experiences are anything more than that.

[Aeran]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Do you think other people's personal experiences give them proof of god? Going back to the evangelical church "healing" example, do you think their experiences mean that the Christian path is Truth? When you claim to know the truth about something that means there is no room for other possibility, and you think that human experience is important enough in this giant multiverse we inhabit, to warrant Truth about god?

To me, it's the height of human arrogance to assume that your personal experiences are anything more than that.

In the end, human experience is all we have. If you're going to say that experience is inadequate for determining truth, then we don't know the truth about anything at all. After all, maybe we're all just living in the Matrix, or in a dreamland being projected into our head by a demon

[Rowanwood]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Do you think other people's personal experiences give them proof of god? Going back to the evangelical church "healing" example, do you think their experiences mean that the Christian path is Truth? When you claim to know the truth about something that means there is no room for other possibility, and you think that human experience is important enough in this giant multiverse we inhabit, to warrant Truth about god?

To me, it's the height of human arrogance to assume that your personal experiences are anything more than that.

To be devil's advocate...it is only experience that could ever give anyone a belief in anything that cannot be quantified. Things like love can't be measured (there are hormonal changes in the body, but they don't explain everything and we don't usually take endocrine tests on dates) but the experience of love makes it a real thing. But, I do agree that doesn't make it a real thing for someone OTHER than the person involved and I think that's the primary difference between someone like me and someone who proselytizes.

Does experience provide proof? Sort of. This doesn't mean it's outside of someone's head, if that's what you mean. It can however have a profound impact on the behavior of that person and to me that proves it was a real event, because something doesn't have to happen outside of a person to be a real thing.

It's useless as a "truth" to apply to experience of another person, and I feel zero desire to convince anyone that what I've personally experienced is a real thing. If what I'd seen was a purple unicorn (to quote above) and that unicorn made me more capable of living a fulfilling and happy life? Then to me, that's enough proof that it was "real." But it isn't proof to anyone else that it's real, however that doesn't make it not enough for a logical person to accept when its their personal experience.

I think what I'm trying to say is that when it comes to deity/the divine/whatever you want to call it, that's all the proof there is likely ever to be. I cannot imagine we would even be able to recognize real proof if we saw it, because if the vast majority of faiths and practitioners are to be believed, the divine is greater than we can totally comprehend anyway.

That's what faith is about. If that's a hump you can't get past, then agnosticism it is. I can't foresee anything occurring that could ever change your mind. And that's awesome, as long as that satisfies your soul.

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

In the end, human experience is all we have. If you're going to say that experience is inadequate for determining truth, then we don't know the truth about anything at all.

Not true -- we don't know about atoms because we experienced them (well, technically we do but I hope you know what I mean here), we know because we can study them and, with the right equipment, see them. We know about gravity because Newton noticed an apple, and we know about calculus because he then asked "why doesn't the moon fall?" Sure, most science is inspired by human experience and observation but we understand what scientific laws we have because we were able to study them. Also, most of the things we "know" are still considered theories because scientists leave open the possibility for new information and account for the unexplained.

If there was a way to truly study god/divinity the way that we study atoms then I would enroll in university tomorrow and become an expert on the subject!

After all, maybe we're all just living in the Matrix, or in a dreamland being projected into our head by a demon

DEMONS DO NOT EXIST, YOU NINCOMPOOP (hehehehe, atheist zone, I'm allowed to be silly -- I really mean no offense)

[Aeran]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Not true -- we don't know about atoms because we experienced them (well, technically we do but I hope you know what I mean here), we know because we can study them and, with the right equipment, see them. We know about gravity because Newton noticed an apple, and we know about calculus because he then asked "why doesn't the moon fall?" Sure, most science is inspired by human experience and observation but we understand what scientific laws we have because we were able to study them. Also, most of the things we "know" are still considered theories because scientists leave open the possibility for new information and account for the unexplained.

But all of that is an experience. Studying and seeing an atom is an experience, noticing an apple is an experience, looking at a textbook and learning something is an experience. If we're discounting experience as a basis for belief, then the only proper belief is our own existence - 'I think, therefore I am.' The only difference between the experience of looking at an atom under a microscope and that of a mystical encounter is that the former is vastly easier to induce, and so has been experienced by many people, and so is more widely accepted on the basis on consensus.

DEMONS DO NOT EXIST, YOU NINCOMPOOP (hehehehe, atheist zone, I'm allowed to be silly -- I really mean no offense)

You'll have to take that up with Descartes, it's his demon

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

After all, maybe we're all just living in the Matrix, or in a dreamland being projected into our head by a demon

Well, if not a demon, maybe a hologram?

Is The Universe A Hologram? Physicists Say It's Possible

[Rowanwood]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

But all of that is an experience. Studying and seeing an atom is an experience, noticing an apple is an experience, looking at a textbook and learning something is an experience. If we're discounting experience as a basis for belief, then the only proper belief is our own existence - 'I think, therefore I am.' The only difference between the experience of looking at an atom under a microscope and that of a mystical encounter is that the former is vastly easier to induce, and so has been experienced by many people, and so is more widely accepted on the basis on consensus.

You are only right if you believe in the theory that nothing exists except for our experience of it....which actually makes Bjorn right, because if she hasn't experienced what you have, it hence doesn't exist for her, hence is no kind of proof at all.

So way to prove her point.

[Aeran]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

Well, if not a demon, maybe a hologram?

Is The Universe A Hologram? Physicists Say It's Possible

I really need to start learning more about physics, it's fascinating stuff but too much of it goes completely over my head. It's just fascinating how many paralegals there are between cutting edge physics and older spiritual philosophies.

You are only right if you believe in the theory that nothing exists except for our experience of it....which actually makes Bjorn right, because if she hasn't experienced what you have, it hence doesn't exist for her, hence is no kind of proof at all.

So way to prove her point.

I never said that one persons experiences should serve as proof for another, precisely the opposite in fact.

[Rowanwood]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

I never said that one persons experiences should serve as proof for another, precisely the opposite in fact.

Then what exactly is your point? Experience might be proof enough for you and it can be for me too, but there's no argument there. It's not proof of anything in an empirical sense.

(Also, I think you meant parallels, not paralegals. Might want to spank your autocorrect.)

[Aeran]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

(Also, I think you meant parallels, not paralegals. Might want to spank your autocorrect.)

I'd rather spank a paralegal, but yes, I meant parallels

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

To be devil's advocate...it is only experience that could ever give anyone a belief in anything that cannot be quantified. Things like love can't be measured (there are hormonal changes in the body, but they don't explain everything and we don't usually take endocrine tests on dates) but the experience of love makes it a real thing. But, I do agree that doesn't make it a real thing for someone OTHER than the person involved and I think that's the primary difference between someone like me and someone who proselytizes.

Does experience provide proof? Sort of. This doesn't mean it's outside of someone's head, if that's what you mean. It can however have a profound impact on the behavior of that person and to me that proves it was a real event, because something doesn't have to happen outside of a person to be a real thing.

I agree that experience is usually what inspires belief and that belief is not something that needs to be dissected in order for it to have personal effect and be life-changing. I never meant to imply that personal experience negates reality, only that it is not evidence of it. It is, in my experience, just evidence of the person's interest in spirituality. I notice that most atheists don't have religious experiences, that people who believe in certain gods are visited by their certain gods, that when I ask The Great Spirit to speak to me through nature that it happens, I mean, WE create that. Sure, I believe it's entirely possible that the purple unicorn visited you but I highly doubt it. The human mind is a fickle thing and easily tricked into sensationalizing things.

I think what I'm trying to say is that when it comes to deity/the divine/whatever you want to call it, that's all the proof there is likely ever to be. I cannot imagine we would even be able to recognize real proof if we saw it, because if the vast majority of faiths and practitioners are to be believed, the divine is greater than we can totally comprehend anyway.

I will agree with that. Personal experience is all we have when dealing with the unknown and that the divine is greater than we can understand.

That's what faith is about. If that's a hump you can't get past, then agnosticism it is. I can't foresee anything occurring that could ever change your mind. And that's awesome, as long as that satisfies your soul.

See, I dislike the assumption that I am lacking in spiritual depth because my mind remains resolute. I have a practice, I just don't presume that it is relevant to the divine at all. As I said to Aeran, I do not identify with agnosticism as a chain to keep my feet on the ground, I find it very freeing to be able to practice whatever I want, however I want, and know that it is what is best for my spirit.

- - - Updated - - -

But all of that is an experience. Studying and seeing an atom is an experience, noticing an apple is an experience, looking at a textbook and learning something is an experience. If we're discounting experience as a basis for belief, then the only proper belief is our own existence - 'I think, therefore I am.' The only difference between the experience of looking at an atom under a microscope and that of a mystical encounter is that the former is vastly easier to induce, and so has been experienced by many people, and so is more widely accepted on the basis on consensus.

I'm a little lost with this explanation -- we didn't invent gravity when Newton studied it and narrowed it down, it was there all along and then we stumbled upon it after observation of the world around us.

- - - Updated - - -

I never said that one person's experiences should serve as proof for another, precisely the opposite in fact.

Do you think, then, that they serve as proof of anything? Do you think that personal experience acts as proof of a specific god(s) or simply "something?" Because I believe strongly in the "something." It's why I'm agnostic instead of atheist (though no, I do not believe in any idea of god currently existing and do not believe in mythology).

[Rowanwood]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

See, I dislike the assumption that I am lacking in spiritual depth because my mind remains resolute. I have a practice, I just don't presume that it is relevant to the divine at all. As I said to Aeran, I do not identify with agnosticism as a chain to keep my feet on the ground, I find it very freeing to be able to practice whatever I want, however I want, and know that it is what is best for my spirit.

I think you missed my point. It's hard to get my tone across in a post, especially this loopy on codeine, but I will try harder.

My little personal phrase under my pic there <---- Whatever satisfies the soul is the truth. That's all I'm talking about. I never meant to insinuate that you were lacking in anything. What I meant was if this was your truth and it satisfied you then there's no need to dig beyond it. If you can nurture your spirituality in the framework of agnosticism as fully as someone else can in the framework of their faith, then that's awesome. I think it may have come across wrong because a lot of people assume agnostics are just in a transition from one belief to another, not that it is their actual philosophy, so I suppose you are probably used to that assumption. I wasn't making it.

The only point I wanted to make was that if it WAS NOT satisfying your soul for some reason, then you might want to consider more searching. But if it does, then I take that as a sign you are right where you need to be.

[Aeran]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

I'm a little lost with this explanation -- we didn't invent gravity when Newton studied it and narrowed it down, it was there all along and then we stumbled upon it after observation of the world around us.

Our lives are a long string of personal experience, is my point. we interact with reality through the lens of subjective experience, which is why thought exercises like Descartes' Demon exist, because ultimately, there is no way for us to be 100% sure of what any particular experience is being inspired by. I have the experience right now of sitting at my computer pounding away at my keyboard, and while it seems unlikely, there is a remote and undeniable possibility that I am not, in objective reality, sitting at my computer, but instead am asleep and dreaming, or inside a demonic dreamworld, or a holographic projection, etc etc etc. Experiences are the only thing we know for sure, which means that all of our beliefs are also based on experience.

For example, I believe, and most people would consider it true, and a fact, that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. But how do I know this? I have no way of observing, or interacting with, the speed of light, what I can do is induce the experience of reading wikipedia, and trust that that experience is inspired by something true and reliable (that I am, in fact, perceiving a screen which does, in fact, due to a long causal chain, contain that information). Therefor my belief about the speed of light is based on an experience. And even those who originally calculated it had no way of directly perceiving the speed of light except through the lens of their own personal experience of performing experiments and calculations.

You see what I'm getting at? Everything we know is based on experience. Now of course not all experiences are created equal, some of them are inspired by incorrect things (dreams, delusion induced by drugs or mental illness, poor memory, etc), but they are all, in nature, the same thing at their core. I believe in God for the same reason that I believe that the speed of light is 299, 792, 458 meters/second, because I've had an experience which suggests that that is the case and have decided, based on the evidence, that that experience most likely was inspired by something true, instead of something false. You can compare and contrast experiences, but you can't invalidate experience itself as the basis of belief unless you're willing to cast off the entirety of human knowledge.

[Bjorn]

Re: Agnosticism Discussion

My little personal phrase under my pic there <---- Whatever satisfies the soul is the truth. That's all I'm talking about. I never meant to insinuate that you were lacking in anything. What I meant was if this was your truth and it satisfied you then there's no need to dig beyond it. If you can nurture your spirituality in the framework of agnosticism as fully as someone else can in the framework of their faith, then that's awesome. I think it may have come across wrong because a lot of people assume agnostics are just in a transition from one belief to another, not that it is their actual philosophy, so I suppose you are probably used to that assumption. I wasn't making it.

The only point I wanted to make was that if it WAS NOT satisfying your soul for some reason, then you might want to consider more searching. But if it does, then I take that as a sign you are right where you need to be.

Ahh, I see. Thank you for clarifying -- I certainly am used to the assumption I've just never realized there was a word for my philosophy so I'm kind of relieved to finally have a word for it without all the prefacing and whatnot (and it was right in front of my face the whole time, it's kind of embarrassing).

For me, I think agnosticism is actually incredibly open minded because it takes the burden of proof completely off the table and postulates only that the possibility of god, gods, demons, angels, and unicorns is there, just that the proof is not. It doesn't pretend to know the "something" that is out there, only that it can't be known (in my experience, the word of the day).

- - - Updated - - -

Our lives are a long string of personal experience, is my point. we interact with reality through the lens of subjective experience, which is why thought exercises like Descartes' Demon exist, because ultimately, there is no way for us to be 100% sure of what any particular experience is being inspired by. I have the experience right now of sitting at my computer pounding away at my keyboard, and while it seems unlikely, there is a remote and undeniable possibility that I am not, in objective reality, sitting at my computer, but instead am asleep and dreaming, or inside a demonic dreamworld, or a holographic projection, etc etc etc. Experiences are the only thing we know for sure, which means that all of our beliefs are also based on experience.

For example, I believe, and most people would consider it true, and a fact, that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. But how do I know this? I have no way of observing, or interacting with, the speed of light, what I can do is induce the experience of reading wikipedia, and trust that that experience is inspired by something true and reliable (that I am, in fact, perceiving a screen which does, in fact, due to a long causal chain, contain that information). Therefor my belief about the speed of light is based on an experience. And even those who originally calculated it had no way of directly perceiving the speed of light except through the lens of their own personal experience of performing experiments and calculations.

You see what I'm getting at? Everything we know is based on experience. Now of course not all experiences are created equal, some of them are inspired by incorrect things (dreams, delusion induced by drugs or mental illness, poor memory, etc), but they are all, in nature, the same thing at their core. I believe in God for the same reason that I believe that the speed of light is 299, 792, 458 meters/second, because I've had an experience which suggests that that is the case and have decided, based on the evidence, that that experience most likely was inspired by something true, instead of something false. You can compare and contrast experiences, but you can't invalidate experience itself as the basis of belief unless you're willing to cast off the entirety of human knowledge.

I see the idea you're chipping at here but I disagree and suggest that the reason we know what the speed of light because it can be calculated and scientists have studied it. Then, someone published the knowledge and you came upon it. It is also constant: if every single person had the same experience of god then I would be forced to agree with the majority, but such is not the case.