I always wonder why a large proportion a agnostics are theists too. Agnostic/weak atheists abound, and for obvious reasons - since that is the only rational, sensible, honest stance currently possible; but I have yet to met a non-partisan agnostic. Why are there so many agnostic theists though? How can a person who admits the lack of evidence or knowledge for an object then go on to nevertheless include that into his/her ontology? Isnt that a double standard/intellectual dishonesty?

Ps. Please rate yourself on this scale -
1 - Existence of God [Yes, No, uncertain, dont know, etc]
2 - Your belief in God [Do, dont, non-partisan]
3 - Your view on Religion [anti-religious, irreligious, apatheist, empatheist, etc]
4 - Your social stance [militant, weak, anti-theist, etc]

Me :-
1. Dont know [Tentative practical Agnosticism]
2. Dont [Atheism]
3. Apatheist/irreligious [Dont care/critical of religion*]
4. Weak [I play along and keep to myself]

* But not opposted to religion [anti-religious]. Religion can still be, um, useful.

I always wonder why a large proportion a agnostics are theists too.

I'm not sure what the proportions are. There might not be a lot of data on that.

But religious mystics are often agnostics (of a sort). The motivation is typically the idea that God is so great, and so transcendent, that God exceeds all of our earthly and finite human concepts.

That leads to a non-cognitive kind of religiosity. In theology-speak, it's referred to as 'apophatic theology' or sometimes 'negative theology'.

See a short explanation here:

http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/courses/rel3432/cataapophatic1.htm

For more, just do a Google search for the phrase "apophatic theology".

I'm not sure what the proportions are. There might not be a lot of data on that.

But religious mystics are often agnostics (of a sort). The motivation is typically the idea that God is so great, and so transcendent, that God exceeds all of our earthly and finite human concepts.

That leads to a non-cognitive kind of religiosity. In theology-speak, it's referred to as 'apophatic theology' or sometimes 'negative theology'.

See a short explanation here:

http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/courses/rel3432/cataapophatic1.htm

For more, just do a Google search for the phrase "apophatic theology".

Mystics arent big on objectivity, scepticism againsts baises and intellectual honesty, are they? ;)
Btw, intresting info indeed.
Ps. Care to take up the scale?

I always wonder why a large proportion a agnostics are theists too. Agnostic/weak atheists abound, and for obvious reasons - since that is the only rational, sensible, honest stance currently possible; but I have yet to met a non-partisan agnostic. Why are there so many agnostic theists though?

Being an active agnostic, takes more effort than memorizing the key features of a religious doctrine. The answers of universal consciousness is not black and white, so one has to put in time to learn, meditate and ponder and come to their own conclusions. This is hard to do and takes time. It is easier to simply memorize the talking points of any given religion.

This is true of all areas of knowledge, including science. It is easier to memorize the group talking points than put in the time needed to figure out things from scratch. A science agnostic, would question the premises of science and not just accept them blindly. This is hard to do and it is easier and less time consuming to learn the talking points.

Besides not having the time, another reason an agnostic might learn the talking points, is for a sense of shared community. The agnostic in religion or science is often on a path that is often alone. Once on the outside, the herd gets spooked when you try to approach. To be part of the community, so they don't persecute you due to being different, many decide it useful to learn the shared traditions so there is more in common.

To established religion, the agnostic is similar to the pseudo-scientists of science. Neither are not fully embraced. Both types of agnostics ponder outside the box of the traditions and both are always outnumbered by the quick time memorizers of the traditions. The soft atheist can get some crap for letting even one foot leave the fold. The agnostic can get the same thing if they leave the religion.

Interestingly, just as the agnostic is often more acceptable to atheism, that is a pure theists, religion will often have a soft spot for the science agnostic. Both live on the bridge that separates these two groups. They are sort of their own separate race of humans with one foot in both worlds.

Mystics arent big on objectivity, scepticism againsts baises and intellectual honesty, are they? ;)

I take it that your question is rhetorical and that you don't like religious mysticism very much. So... why do you think that they aren't objective, are biased and are intellectually dishonest? (That's a pretty harsh dismissal.)

As for me, I'm rather fond of the mystics. I just think that if I push on this apophatic line of thinking very hard, there's no longer much point in my using the rather loaded word 'God' to refer to whatever unspeakable transcendence there might be.

Of course, a big difference between me and them is that they often claim to have experienced some sort of non-cognitive revelation of this transcendence, and I haven't.

I take it that your question is rhetorical and that you don't like religious mysticism very much. So... why do you think that they aren't objective, are biased and are intellectually dishonest? (That's a pretty harsh dismissal.)

As for me, I'm rather fond of the mystics. I just think that if I push on this apophatic line of thinking very hard, there's no longer much point in my using the rather loaded word 'God' to refer to whatever unspeakable transcendence there might be.

Of course, a big difference between me and them is that they often claim to have experienced some sort of non-cognitive revelation of this transcendence, and I haven't.

Hey, good use of the burden of rejoinder to contest rather than complement! As my oh-so-horrible thread on "If there is a hell, I want to be there" shows, its better that way.

I think that way because I was a new ager myself about 3 years ago - the secret, noetics, secret societies, new age mysticism, quantum woo-woo - I had my hands pretty dirty before Penn and Teller began the process of breaking my spell [the process was completed by the God delusion on 5th december 2011, the day when I admitted to myself that I was a non-believer]. And those traits are absent because there is no emphasis on them in the mystic's way of thinking. I didnt ever think of things like falsifiability, parsimony, absurdism,etc before I became a sceptic.

So, why do you like them? Do you 'like' theists too? Where do you draw the line? I dont like people in general, I am a misatrophe and one look at the masses on the subway or the streets is enough to put you in my shoes once you consider the ignorance, stupidity, misinformation and lack of expertise [and even of thought!] that passes for their cognition. I dont hate them and neither am I anti-social. I dislike the fact that people exist in such a condition where they protest GMOs because they are ignorant of the biology which any student would know of, even half a century ago! That is why I suggested that the 'vision' of the masses be changed [in my "Need for debasement of religion" thread].

Aaq, I just say I don't know and try to spend time doing good as I am able. The universe seems big enough that I find it reasonable to retain the hope in somehow being rescued, so I retain a little belief in a god. I prefer to view my religion more as considering people special instead of limiting specialness to just humans. My stance on religion is that more dogma tends to make a religion more wrong.

Aaq, I just say I don't know and try to spend time doing good as I am able. The universe seems big enough that I find it reasonable to retain the hope in somehow being rescued, so I retain a little belief in a god. I prefer to view my religion more as considering people special instead of limiting specialness to just humans. My stance on religion is that more dogma tends to make a religion more wrong.

Good view, I like it. No offense though, when I say its a little escapist and wishful.

Anyway, are you a weak theist/agnostic/agnostic theist - what?

Good view, I like it. No offense though, when I say its a little escapist and wishful.

Anyway, are you a weak theist/agnostic/agnostic theist - what?

Thanks. It definitely is wishful, and I need the hope to keep me going.

Agnostic theist might describe my view these days.

Thanks. It definitely is wishful, and I need the hope to keep me going.

Agnostic theist might describe my view these days.

confusion , so whats the problem ?

confusion , so whats the problem ?

I don't know why you say that. Maybe you didn't get what I've said, but I'm not confused about it myself. :confused:

I don't know why you say that. Maybe you didn't get what I've said, but I'm not confused about it myself. :confused:

well lets define " agnostic "

" a person who hold the view that any ultimate reality ( as god ) is unknown and probably unknowable "

or

" one who is not commited to believing in either the existence or the non-existence of god or a god "

well lets define " agnostic "

" a person who hold the view that any ultimate reality ( as god ) is unknown and probably unknowable "

or

" one who is not commited to believing in either the existence or the non-existence of god or a god "

Okay, thanks River. Taking the first definition, it looks fine that one can believe in God without knowing for sure. The uncertainty could result in the lack of commitment mentioned in the second definition.

“ Originally Posted by river
well lets define " agnostic "

" a person who hold the view that any ultimate reality ( as god ) is unknown and probably unknowable "

or

" one who is not commited to believing in either the existence or the non-existence of god or a god "



Okay, thanks River. Taking the first definition, it looks fine that one can believe in God without knowing for sure. The uncertainty could result in the lack of commitment mentioned in the second definition.

a lack of knowledge is the basis of the agnostic

a lack of knowledge is the basis of the agnostic

Nonsense. It's knowledge that makes an agnostic. It's lack of blind faith that you bemoan.

“ Originally Posted by river
a lack of knowledge is the basis of the agnostic



Nonsense. It's knowledge that makes an agnostic. It's lack of blind faith that you bemoan.

what knowledge does an agnostic have then ?

The knowledge to know that the universe doesn't need a god to exist.

The knowledge to know that the universe doesn't need a god to exist.

so how does relate to being agnostic ?

If you know that the universe doesn't need a god to exist, why entertain such far-fetched idea as god in the first place

If you know that the universe doesn't need a god to exist, why entertain such far-fetched idea as god in the first place

this is not the agnostic philosophy

well lets define " agnostic "

" a person who hold the view that any ultimate reality ( as god ) is unknown and probably unknowable "

or

" one who is not commited to believing in either the existence or the non-existence of god or a god "

There is no 'agnostic philosophy'. There are just individuals who question the existence of a god.

Myself, I'm not an agnostic, I'm an atheist.

There is no 'agnostic philosophy'. There are just individuals who question the existence of a god.

Myself, I'm not an agnostic, I'm an atheist.

so I'm I

but the only way an agnostic would be a theist is by the lack of knowledge

Ancient Historical knowledge

and the only way a theist would be a theist is also the same , lack of the same knowledge

Oh, right, UFOs, ancient Aliens as gods, all the rest of that woo-woo.

I forgot for a moment that you were into that silliness.

Oh, right, UFOs, ancient Aliens as gods,

first , to the Sumerians and Akkadians they were not considered gods



all the rest of that woo-woo. I forgot for a moment that you were into that silliness.

of course one who ingnorant of the past would have this silly " woo-woo " response to the past

it is written down after all , on cuniforms , clay tablets

its not strange that those who don't know , have a silly woo-woo response , but this doesn't take away from what is recorded in Ancient History

@river --

So the aliens came here to, supposedly, get gold, correct?

@river --

So the aliens came here to, supposedly, get gold, correct?

I thought that was Cortez...

And I heard that they were cross-breeding with us(never mind the biological impossibility of that) too, which is odd because they should be much more technologically advanced than that.

You forgot the part about them having DNA technology they used to take human form in the first place...

Well I wouldn't want to make the boldfaced assumption that they even have DNA, they probably use some other molecule as their genetic template.

To the question of this thread: I have several agnostic theist friends... and having discussed the matter with them it seems that the same reason applies to them all: they accept that God is possibly unknowable, and they know that at present all they themselves have to go on is popular understandings, ancient books, and teachings of people they respect (i.e. none claim a direct experience of God as of yet, but do not all discount the possibility).
But they also have a metaphorical "itch" that can only be scratched by their belief in God.
They try to imagine that God doesn't exist and the uncomfortable itch returns.

a lack of knowledge is the basis of the agnostic

I agree with that, which fits with my observation that for religions, less dogma tends to be the better approach. I'm pretty agnostic and since we don't know, I'd prefer to minimize speculation or basically making stuff up.


so I'm I

but the only way an agnostic would be a theist is by the lack of knowledge

Ancient Historical knowledge

and the only way a theist would be a theist is also the same , lack of the same knowledge

In my case, I basically discount all accounts of God, present and past as nonfactual stories. I say basically because there might be an exception to my disapproval of such stories that I can't think of right now. So, the god I have some hope in is unknown and yet good. Don't ask me how that would be possible because I don't know and I'd rather not speculate.

So, why do you like them [the agnostic sort of religious mystic]? Do you 'like' theists too? Where do you draw the line?

Well, these theistic agnostics are theists, so in a sense there isn't any line.

Why do I like them?

Believing that God is ultimately unknowable in a cognitive, propositional sense, they typically make fewer claims about God than other theists do.

That involves them in fewer epistemological difficulties.

They are less likely to set themselves up as God's earthly mouthpiece, proclaiming the minute details of what God supposedly thinks and commands.

They are less likely to proselytize.

Their emphasis on personal experience means that they often recognize that everyone needs to experience things for themselves and hance has their own path to follow.

They are far less apt to anthropomorphize God, to imagine God as if God was a human personality blown up really large.

Hence their non-conceptual concept of God (so to speak) seems to me to be more likely to be true and accurate when it's applied to the transcendent dimension of life and to whatever it is that may or may not ultimately account for the universe and Being itself. Whatever lies out there (if anything does) is probably something very unlike us and unlike anything we've ever imagined.

They acknowledge and speak to the emotional and spiritual side of life in ways that others don't.

They help show us a hermeneutical way to 'read' the world's various religious traditions in such a way as to preserve what's good in them, their art, their beauty and their wisdom, without throwing it all away in a fit of atheistic anger.

They show a way that the worlds religions, so different and so inconsistent on the doctrinal level, can be reconciled at a higher experiential level that transcends words.

There's less chance of them getting into any turf-battles with science.

They teach and practice contemplative and meditative disciplines that I think can be very valuable.

Perhaps as a result of that, their inner peace and calm, their depth and emotional resonance, and their ethical behavior sometimes impress me.

well, these theistic agnostics are theists, so in a sense there isn't any line.

why do i like them?

believing that god is ultimately unknowable in a cognitive, propositional sense, they typically make fewer claims about god than other theists do.

That involves them in fewer epistemological difficulties.

They are less likely to set themselves up as god's earthly mouthpiece, proclaiming the minute details of what god supposedly thinks and commands.

They are less likely to proselytize.

Their emphasis on personal experience means that they often recognize that everyone needs to experience things for themselves and hance has their own path to follow.

They are far less apt to anthropomorphize god, to imagine god as if god was a human personality blown up really large.

Hence their non-conceptual concept of god (so to speak) seems to me to be more likely to be true and accurate when it's applied to the transcendent dimension of life and to whatever it is that may or may not ultimately account for the universe and being itself. Whatever lies out there (if anything does) is probably something very unlike us and unlike anything we've ever imagined.

They acknowledge and speak to the emotional and spiritual side of life in ways that others don't.

They help show us a hermeneutical way to 'read' the world's various religious traditions in such a way as to preserve what's good in them, their art, their beauty and their wisdom, without throwing it all away in a fit of atheistic anger.

They show a way that the worlds religions, so different and so inconsistent on the doctrinal level, can be reconciled at a higher experiential level that transcends words.

There's less chance of them getting into any turf-battles with science.

They teach and practice contemplative and meditative disciplines that i think can be very valuable.

Perhaps as a result of that, their inner peace and calm, their depth and emotional resonance, and their ethical behavior sometimes impress me.

eye opening!

1 - Existence of God [ No]
2 - Your belief in God [dont]
3 - Your view on Religion [anti-religious]
4 - Your social stance [ anti-theist, however i do find their faith fucking hysterical and maybe will keep a couple around to study and for my own personal ammusement]:D