



thats that then

i was listening the radiohead song creep


Views: 24

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion




There's no intrinsic connection. None. One cannot simply assume what stance a person a person holds on a legitimate epistemological issue based on that person's theistic alignment.

I am talking about the philosophy that a person espouses on gnosis and the terminology they use to describe it.
There's no intrinsic connection.

But agnosticism regarding a deity is intrinsic to the human condition; we can assume that everyone is agnostic, regardless of their belief system. The presence of a belief system confirms the lack of knowledge.

I am realizing, upon further examination, that my reasons for primarily labeling myself as "agnostic" are rooted in mean-spirited humor and shallow pride. For me, the most appealing facet of the label is that it should be a given amongst people, but it is not. Saying "I am agnostic" should be greeted with a "No shit" reply, but never is. Maybe I am subtly patting myself on the back for getting the inside joke that no one else finds funny?

Anyways, I have been thinking about the agnostic couchism analogy. (Couchism? It just sounded so good, I had to use it.) It reminds me of an example from philosophy class last year about rain in China (same principle, just a farther trip than the living room). Assuming one is sitting in North America, it is impossible to know directly through our immediate sensory perception if it raining in China right now. (This example bars television, radio, or internet as any of these sources can be easily faked, and can only deliver second-hand information.)

So you are agnostic about the presence of rain in China, much like you are agnostic about the presence of your couch in the living room, and much like you are agnostic about the presence of a supernatural deity. However, as I see it, the crucial difference between the first two examples and the third is that you are only ignorant about the rain and the couch because your current location places these events outside your realm of sensory perception. You can very easily walk to your living room--or, less easily, fly to China--and confirm the event with your own senses. But regarding the supernatural deity, there is absolutely nothing you can do to confirm or deny it with your own sensory input. The supernatural deity is fundamentally beyond the realm of your sensory perception; therefore, you are irrevocably agnostic about the presence of a god.

Does this make the two different agnosticisms different? I don't know, but it was bouncing around in my head so I decided to leave a ridiculously long ramble about it here.

Ha! Now that is a good reason to use the term.

And I must point out one important fact about Couchism; the couch will only disappear when you are not there to see it. It's a different version of Sagan's incorporeal dragon in the garage. So, while I may take a stroll to the living room to see if it is there, at the precise moment I do, it materializes. And when I leave the room, it wanders off again, perhaps dumping water on China from lofty heights.

I know it's silly, but really, I can't know that this isn't really happening. There has to come a point where a level of certainty of things either existing or not existing must be treated as if they are knowns. I think gods, fairies, flying unicorns, creepy couches, and other such mythical beasts do not merit an "I dunno maybe".

Let those who belief they are certain carry the extra weight of words.

As A7 says; Tora tora tora!

I agree, there is a certain functionality that must be used for daily life. Epistemological rambles are fun for speculation, but practicality demands that we pick a side.

But I guess that what I was trying to get at was that while the creepy couch and the Chinese rain are at least knowable, the supernatural deity is fundamentally unknowable. Therefore, being agnostic towards the couch and the rain when not in the presence of either is only a temporary situation that can be changed by altering one's place in space and/or time. Agnosticism towards the deity is permanent and unremediable; as such, it is a given condition. Even if the couch disappeared upon you leaving the room, you are at least capable of perceiving it when in the presence of the couch. But the supernatural deity remains forever unperceptible.

It is a perversion of this permanent supernatural ignorance for someone to then say, "Could be so!" and try to elevate their belief acknowledging the possibility by labeling it as "agnostic." How does not being able to ever know about something then logically lead to supposing that something is possible? Maybe my thinking is mixed up, because I fail to see logic that people use to have "agnostic" mean "you can't deny the possibility!"


I agree. Using "agnostic" in this scenario is a way to feign disbelief.

I agree that labeling oneself as "agnostic" and "atheist" is redundant; everyone is an agnostic regarding a god because no one has knowledge about supernatural entities. I think that "I am agnostic about a god" is as blindingly obvious of a statement as "I exist." The universal condition of agnosticism is the predicate for religious belief; if anyone was actually gnostic regarding a god, then they would know about a god rather than believing or disbelieving in a god. A lack of knowledge is required for the possibility of a accepting or rejecting a belief; therefore, the condition of being agnostic is a given if one claims either theism or atheism.

But it is true that most people misuse "agnosticism" to mean a sort of passive theism; they hold open the possibility of a god existing, which in my mind is halfway to theism. If you hold open the possibility of a god existing, then you are not fully rejecting the belief in a god. At the very least, this is a noncommital deism.

Reggie, I think that we have had this conversation before (IIRC) because I do describe myself as "agnostic." In part, I like the blindingly obvious reference simply because it is not blindingly obvious to so many people. Perhaps not here or on other philosophical forums, but in daily life I am continually amazed that so few people can distinguish between "knowledge" and "belief."

Secondly, I am guilty of capitalizing upon the common misconception of "agnostic," and I find that people are far less confrontational (again, in my daily life) when I use this term rather than "atheist." This largely stems from the massive misconception that "atheism" definitively states that there is no god, and I really don't have the patience to explain the difference between rejecting a belief and claiming an entirely separate belief. (Or maybe I am just perilously lazy...or maybe I am just a coward.)
The universal condition of agnosticism is the predicate for religious belief...

Yeah, that's what I get for trying to sound all smart and use them big ole words; I obviously have no idea how to properly use "predicate." The above sentence would be more accurately stated as:

"The universal condition of agnosticism is the prerequisite for religious belief..."

I hang my head in shame as an English major mangling my native tongue.
Oddly, agnosticism may be fairly considered the predicate of religious belief. Despite the change in meaning, it doesn't seem to present any strong variation on the sentiment.

On a side note, I think you almost have to be an English major to appreciate any mangling of the language. In all fairness, it was a total mess before any of us even got a good hack at it.


Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.




Brag about yourself!

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Amanda Mrakovich 1 hour ago. 78 Replies


  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service