Shouldn't everyone be agnostic until the being responsible for creating everything makes itself finally known?

I guess, not that it really matters either way, for me. But for the people that it does matter for..it’s got to do with more than just who created the Earth or whatever…since supposedly that same thing is also ever-present and watching and judging and whatever so I guess you have to do what the particular sacred texts your parents taught you to to read tell you. (yes I know some people choose the religion not of their parents, but most don’t, globally)

“Shouldn’t we just all wait and see?”

Yes, but the problem is that not everyone believes there is a being responsible, nor that it will ever make itself known if there is one.

We are all agnostic, it’s just that not every person identifies as agnostic or uses that label to describe themselves.

For example.. I know that I don’t know beyond a shadow of a doubt that god isn’t real. I just don’t feel a need to entertain what I perceive to be an unlikely possibility, so I consider myself an atheist. I’m still agnostic, because I don’t know.

I wouldn’t wait too long. Our days are numbered on earth.

“shouldn’t we” – How can we say what someone else should and shouldn’t do?

If it makes a person happy, comforted, whatever, then it suits their needs, obviously .

As far as a being (God?) making himself known, it might not be within our lifetimes, so your friend is doing what comforts him, believing what comforts him, in his lifetime.

@jca Yes, but he also wants to prove that God exists.

Some people believe that god has manifested himself in the world and in their lives.

Okay, I admit it: I’m the being responsible for creating everything. You can all stop being agnostic now. I’m not a god, though, so you’ll have to start a new conversation to figure out what this revelation means.

That would be the sensible thing to do. Whoever said mankind was sensible? Au contraire.

Just live your life.

Well, of course. The problem is that religion is often contagious – we “catch” the religion of our parents, most commonly – and then the search ends, because the holy books (and priests) brainwash us into believing that we now have received wisdom – all that we need.

I think that deep down most people probably are agnostic. As a self-described nonreligious theist I’m not even sure what to make of the concept of what is usually termed as ‘God’ by religionists and ‘Mind’ by secular dualists.

Most people are agnostic only if we have a very silly definition of “agnosticism.” Agnostics suspend belief about the existence or non-existence of a God. It is not mere uncertainty.

Doesn’t everyone agree there is a God? The disagreements lie in what sort of God.

Are you kidding, @flutherother? No, there is certainly and unequivocally NO universal agreement on this.

The premise of the question is quite a huge leap. It presumes that there is a creature responsible for creating the universe. Such a form of agnosticism seems strange to me. How many things are we to be agnostic about? I’m sure we could come up with all manner of strange creatures that don’t exist, but that could, so we should remain agnostic, waiting for the creature to make itself known.

@SavoirFaire There are different philosophies relating to agnosticism.

@flutherother Apparantely there is a difference between ignosticism and agnosticism. In a way I kind of consider my own beliefs about a deity to be in this category and I’ve repeatedly said this which is why I prefer to use the term divine universe over the term God.

Ignostics hold the belief that unless one comes up with a suitable argument about what god really is then it is very difficult to make an assumption about its existence/nonexistence.

I assumed when we all say what our stance is, we’re really saying: I’m 99% sure. But yes, since no one knows, we should be agnostic. But we also believe other things with or without evidence other than god.

If you start with the premise that there is no God and that everything that exists can be explained in a rational way in terms of other things you will eventually find that the premise is false. Therefore God exists. But what kind of a God I do not know and neither does anyone else.

If you start (or end up with) a premise that “God made the Universe from nothing”, then you probably believe in all kinds of magic and other mysticism, too, most or all of which can (or will) be eventually disproven.

In any case, even if you believe – even if you knew – that God at one time made the universe, it doesn’t mean that It couldn’t have died, gone away or simply ignored the universe in favor of other god games.

Maybe Santa Claus is God.

I believe in God and my faith is pretty strong. However, I still keep an open mind and there will always be the odd time when there is an element of doubt and I find myself questioning my faith. I don’t consider myself agnostic simply because the times when my faith is strong far outweigh the times when it is weak but that doesn’t mean I can’t consider others opinions on this matter.

@Paradox25 And as a philosopher, I’m here to tell you that some of them are wrong.

@flutherother False dilemma. Jains don’t believe in a God, but they also don’t believe that everything can be explained in a rational way.

OP: William James answers this question in his essay “The Will to Believe”.

@mazingerz88
I am an Agnostic too. I wish I had proof.
Life for many of us is cruel, unfair and overwhelming at times.
It is easy for fortunate people to believe.
I love my family unconditionally. I need documentation to believe in things absolutely.

Nah. I don’t think anybody is claiming to know for certain one way or the other. They are just saying what they think is probably right. Agnostics (I consider myself agnostic) just think that’s kind of presumptuous.

Plus it’s problematic for Christians, who believe they must have faith, even despite not having definitive knowledge, that God exists.

I’m an atheist/agnostic and at times I wish I wasn’t. I went for brain surgery in 1992 and was on a floor in Mt. Sinai hospital in NYC that housed people about to have a crainiotomy. There was a woman fingering her rosary beads, and others praying. They weren’t as scared as I was thinking that a higher power would protect them and help them through this trying time. I envied them! I was scared and thought of all the negative outcomes that could happen. I didn’t have anyone to protect me. I learned then that religion can give comfort.

@comity I’ve had that feeling before surgery too. Yes, that thought, that everything is part of a grand plan, that would be comforting, wouldn’t it?

@mazingerz88 Do you have DNA evidence that your father is your father?
Maybe you shouldn’t listen to him till you do.

That is a very Pascal’s Wager-esque idea and I disagree for a couple of reasons.

1. There is so much to be gained through the faith and belief in God that the sooner you believe the better! If you don’t believe me, give it a try. It may be a huge leap outside of your own paradigm, but what do you have to lose? Either you will remain agnostic or you will find that there is something to it .

2. Waiting for scientific evidence doesn’t make sense. Science is a system created by man . Mankind is fallible. Attempting to use a system that resides in a box to prove (and by extension believe) something outside the box is a bit naive. I do believe, however, that as science progresses, it will continually draw nearer and nearer to the conclusion that God does exist.. after all, it is mankind’s way of observing and documenting God’s creation.

@filmfann that is so not it and you know it.

It’s about faith, and that is exactly it.

It’s not all about faith. It was never all about faith.

Just wondering @mazingerz88 , are you suggesting that God has never revealed Himself to anyone? I am not accusing you of that, just asking if that is what you mean…..

Because, He does reveal Himself to people, but perhaps not quite in the way they imagine He would.

Hey guys, @Harold knows god is real.This thing (who is apparently a male) revealed himself a long time ago. The debate is over for good now.

@mazingerz88 “Shouldn’t everyone be agnostic until the being responsible for creating everything makes itself finally known?” “What he really meant was I should believe in God no matter what. He knows I’m agnostic. The thing is, should there be anymore debates about the existence of God”

Isn’t this confusing two issues…belief in god (theism versus atheism) versus knowledge of god(s) existence (agnosticism versus gnosticism)?

Agnosticism is merely acknowledging that some things (often god(s)) are unknown or unknowable. But if your friend is arguing that you should believe in god…then he’s not arguing against your agnosticism, he’s arguing for theism.

Different issue.

http://imgur.com/xXuNC

@digitalimpression The first part of your response is also like Pascal’s Wager, so why aren’t you suspicious of it for the same reasons? Regardless, I’ve gone through your procedure and came out on the other side as a non-believer. The second point forgets that scientific evidence is not the only reason not to believe in a God. There are philosophical reasons, too.

@AdamF While that graph is a bit of an improvement, I still don’t like it. I can’t figure out why people insist on conflating fallibilism with agnosticism. It’s one thing to say we aren’t certain and cannot be certain whether or not there is a god; it’s another thing to say we should all suspend judgment about whether or not there is a god because there can be no knowledge in this area. As far as philosophical distinctions go, this one doesn’t seem terribly subtle or confusing. It escapes me, then, why so many people don’t get it.

@Harold I wouldn’t know if God has ever revealed himself to anyone. Surely there are many who claimed they had that experience. Some say through the Bible, God has been revealed to them.

@AdamF My friend is arguing that I should know there is a God, as revealed, explained and described in the Bible. That would be hard, very hard for me.

@SavoirFaire Most atheists would claim that they don’t absolutely know that there is no god, but almost certainly (depending on each atheists personal views), so this would make most atheists agnostic atheists. There are some self-described theists that while they have a belief that some type of deity/s likely exist, that they are not certain of this, so this would make them an agnostic theist.

In this sense agnosticism isn’t really a third way between atheism and theism but instead is a philosophy of knowledge that is compatable with both. This would put most people(except for the most adherent religionists or atheists) in some type of agnostic category.

I’m not sure why you believe those definitions of agnosticism are wrong, even Austin Kline (and most others) agree with the Wiki definitions of those terms.

@Paradox25 My complaint about Cline and other pop-atheists is that, for the most part, they seem to be historically ignorant. This makes them all too quick to conflate fallibilism with agnosticism. And typically speaking, they do so on the basis of an etymological fallacy. The Latin root of a word might give clues as to what a word means, but it can also be deceptive.

So like I said to @AdamF: it’s one thing to say we aren’t certain and cannot be certain whether or not there is a god (fallibilism); it’s another thing to say we should all suspend judgment about whether or not there is a god because there can be no knowledge in this area (agnosticism). Fallibilism is the proper and historical term for the philosophy of knowledge you are describing, whereas agnosticism is the proper and historical term for something that really is a “third way” (though not the only “third way”).

@SavoirFaire The difference between 1. and Pascal’s Wager is that you don’t keep pretending to believe even if you don’t. With PW you pretend regardless “just in case”. (At least that’s my understanding of PW, correct me if I’m wrong)

As far as 2. goes I related my response to science because the OP eluded to a necessity for physical, observable evidence.

As far as @SavoirFaire goes, I’m genuinely sorry that you were not able to find something with Christianity or a belief in God. I fear you don’t know what you’re missing.

@digitalimpression Pascal thought that in accepting his wager and practicing Christianity, you would eventually come to see that the underlying doctrines are true. It’s not an attempt to get anyone to just go through the motions for the purpose of playing it safe. He thinks God would know what you were doing and not consider it proper faith. That said, he also does not advocate leaving Christianity if it does not work. Pascal would suggest we keep trying until we finally understand. Would you advocate that someone leave the church if he didn’t get anything out of religion after giving it a try?

Regarding your second point, I do not see where @mazingerz88 has alluded to the need for physical, observable evidence. Would you do me the favor of telling me where you found this? As far as I can tell, the first post to use the word “science” or any of its cognates was yours, and the only other use has been in my responses. You are also the only person to have used the word “observable” on this thread. Similarly, the only talk of anything physical outside of your post was @mazingerz88‘s talk of his friend’s physical disabilities (and how the tragedy of them led this person to believe in God as a means of coping). But perhaps I am missing something.

Finally, I’m quite sure I know what I am (or, more accurately, am not) missing. I was part of the Christian faith for almost 20 years. I studied to become a member of the clergy, and was quite involved in the church. I was not just some Christmas and Easter pew-filler. I hope it was not your intention, but the attitude with which you responded to my experience is extremely condescending. It is, in fact, exactly the sort of thing that turns people off to your faith. If you believe in being a good example to attract people to your religion, you will be more careful with your words.

@SavoirFaire That definition of agnosticism only makes sense to me if the deity/s existence is transcendental. Personally I don’t believe in transcendental concepts like most other theists do because I think it is impossible to be outside of science. The problem lies in the very definition of what God is to begin with, so in a sense the definition of fallibilism you’ve given me is a more reliable third option than agnosticism is when compared to atheism and theism, at least to me personally.

So what you’re saying is that atheism means the rejection of the existence of any deity/s, agnosticism means we can never know if any deity/s exist and fallibilism means we don’t know whether any deity/s exist but it may be possible to know if they do someday. The problem I have here with agnosticism being a reliable alternative option to atheism or theism is because we have to ask: ‘What is god’, before we can suspend all judgment in this area. How can we suspend judgment of something when we don’t even know what to suspend judgment of to begin with?

@SavoirFaire I would respond further but its clear you don’t at all understand where I’m coming from as you seem to think I’m “condescending” for some reason. I wish you all the best in your adventures and I look forward to future disagreements with you.

@Paradox25 What I am saying is that theism involves the belief or assertion that God exists, atheism involves the belief or assertion that God does not exist, and that agnosticism involves the suspension of judgment regarding the existence or non-existence of God. Why one believes, does not believe, or suspends judgment is not essential to the definitions. Fallibilism is not itself a position regarding God or any other specific proposition. It’s a view about knowledge. I think I confused you because you seem to have taken my examples of fallibilism and agnosticism as definitions.

@digitalimpression I am afraid you misunderstood me. I was merely trying to help you express yourself better while explaining how you might come off to some people by apologizing for something that is not thought of as a harm or loss. I think I do understand where you are coming from, as it is a place I once was myself. But if you disagree, the proper response is to do a better job explaining rather than to run away.

I take the widest possible interpretation of what God is and that is something that is beyond our understanding and comprehension. You see a leaf blowing down the street and there he is. I think that is it. He cannot make himself any better known.