https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... sticism/p1
I believe that there is no reason to be "agnostic" because saying that you would become theistic if presented with evidence or saying that you are open to the idea of god is non-practical. — nr2004
Apparently you see the question of "God" in terms of "Yes or No", with no room for doubt. Yet, like Socrates, I tend to doubt the completeness and accuracy of my own knowledge. If you claim to have the final word on the ancient mystery of "God", then you must either have some direct knowledge of his existence or non-existence, or you have faith that makes knowledge unnecessary. But, how do you know non-existence?
Theists and Atheists are Gnostics, in the sense that they claim to know for sure (by faith) that God is or isn't. But I'm not so sure; hence I'm Agnostic : A-Theistic, but Deistic, not due to black/white knowledge, but to shades-of-gray possibility.
Gnostic : relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
Phil Forum : Agnosticism
Re: Agnosticism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... sticism/p2
The OP"s got a point, though. I've always felt rather smug and superior calling myself agnostic. But he's right - it is a bit of a cop-out. It allows supernatural explanation. — Chris Hughes
I don't see Agnosticism as a cop-out, but as a Conditional & Complementary belief, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. My general philosophy is summed-up in the BothAnd Principle*1.
From the evidence so-far produced by Science, I have inferred that the Big Bang, Physical Laws, and Initial Conditions were not accidental, but were the Direct Effect of some First Cause. Since that Causal Agent logically existed prior to the Big Bang, it is also beyond the scope of space-time Nature as we know it : hence, Super-Natural. But since I have no direct knowledge of anything supernatural, I must limit my belief in the necessary existence of the Prime Mover with a dose of doubt appropriate to the magnitude of the question.
Hence, I believe there must be some kind of Creator, but my knowledge is limited to observation of the Creation, and is subject to being mis-interpreted. So, while I am literally an A-Theist regarding the humanoid deity of world religions, I must remain A-Gnostic regarding any specific characteristics of the First Cause, beyond the functional requirements of the Philosopher's God of Deism*2.
*1 BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
*2 Conditional belief in Deity :
"However, at this point in time, science is pointing toward a designer / creator behind the universe / life. The complexity of the DNA code is one example. The fine-tuning of the universe’s cosmological constants is another. What science is hinting at is that something, or someone, appears to have a hand in designing the cosmos as we know it, in order for life to exist. While the same science points toward a Big Bang event, what is unknown is what caused the Big to go Bang.
Physics states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Unless you suspend the laws of physics, then what equal force in a “nonexistent universe” could possibly have caused the Big Bang? Did something come from nothing, or, did a transcendent force (God), that we do not yet comprehend, serve as the catalyst when supposedly nothing else existed?
In the meantime, deists are firmly planted in their belief, and with good reason!"
Excerpt from Quora post by Christopher Finch : https://www.quora.com/profile/Christopher-Finch-5
The OP"s got a point, though. I've always felt rather smug and superior calling myself agnostic. But he's right - it is a bit of a cop-out. It allows supernatural explanation. — Chris Hughes
I don't see Agnosticism as a cop-out, but as a Conditional & Complementary belief, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. My general philosophy is summed-up in the BothAnd Principle*1.
From the evidence so-far produced by Science, I have inferred that the Big Bang, Physical Laws, and Initial Conditions were not accidental, but were the Direct Effect of some First Cause. Since that Causal Agent logically existed prior to the Big Bang, it is also beyond the scope of space-time Nature as we know it : hence, Super-Natural. But since I have no direct knowledge of anything supernatural, I must limit my belief in the necessary existence of the Prime Mover with a dose of doubt appropriate to the magnitude of the question.
Hence, I believe there must be some kind of Creator, but my knowledge is limited to observation of the Creation, and is subject to being mis-interpreted. So, while I am literally an A-Theist regarding the humanoid deity of world religions, I must remain A-Gnostic regarding any specific characteristics of the First Cause, beyond the functional requirements of the Philosopher's God of Deism*2.
*1 BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
*2 Conditional belief in Deity :
"However, at this point in time, science is pointing toward a designer / creator behind the universe / life. The complexity of the DNA code is one example. The fine-tuning of the universe’s cosmological constants is another. What science is hinting at is that something, or someone, appears to have a hand in designing the cosmos as we know it, in order for life to exist. While the same science points toward a Big Bang event, what is unknown is what caused the Big to go Bang.
Physics states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Unless you suspend the laws of physics, then what equal force in a “nonexistent universe” could possibly have caused the Big Bang? Did something come from nothing, or, did a transcendent force (God), that we do not yet comprehend, serve as the catalyst when supposedly nothing else existed?
In the meantime, deists are firmly planted in their belief, and with good reason!"
Excerpt from Quora post by Christopher Finch : https://www.quora.com/profile/Christopher-Finch-5
Re: Agnosticism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... sticism/p2
This tries my patience almost beyond endurance. Science looks for causes (in the most modern and scientific sense of "cause," the which by traditional and ordinary usage is in effect not anything understood by "cause"). — tim wood
I'm sorry my wording offends you. So perhaps I should disclaim. I said that Science (Big Bang, Information Theory, Quantum Theory, etc) "hints" at design. In fact, that's why Astronomer Fred Hoyle scoffed at the radical notion that the universe had a beginning, which to him implied (hint, hint) a creation event --- which tried his patience no end --- so he coined an absurd term to describe it : "Big Bang".
Since then, Atheists have come to terms with the fact that space-time seems to have suddenly appeared from out of nowhere, and have looked for alternative explanations, such as an un-caused eternal Multiverse, for which they have no evidence. Since the origin of the Singularity is logically prior to the Bang, its "cause", as you pointed out, cannot be a physical action of the sort that scientists normally look for. Instead, it must be a metaphysical First Cause as postulated by Philosophers over the ages.
Regarding signs of "Design", you may be thinking of instantaneous creation as in the Myth of Genesis. But my personal myth is of gradual "Intelligent Evolution" instead of "Intelligent Design". I can go into much deeper detail, if your patience has any elasticity remaining.
This tries my patience almost beyond endurance. Science looks for causes (in the most modern and scientific sense of "cause," the which by traditional and ordinary usage is in effect not anything understood by "cause"). — tim wood
I'm sorry my wording offends you. So perhaps I should disclaim. I said that Science (Big Bang, Information Theory, Quantum Theory, etc) "hints" at design. In fact, that's why Astronomer Fred Hoyle scoffed at the radical notion that the universe had a beginning, which to him implied (hint, hint) a creation event --- which tried his patience no end --- so he coined an absurd term to describe it : "Big Bang".
Since then, Atheists have come to terms with the fact that space-time seems to have suddenly appeared from out of nowhere, and have looked for alternative explanations, such as an un-caused eternal Multiverse, for which they have no evidence. Since the origin of the Singularity is logically prior to the Bang, its "cause", as you pointed out, cannot be a physical action of the sort that scientists normally look for. Instead, it must be a metaphysical First Cause as postulated by Philosophers over the ages.
Regarding signs of "Design", you may be thinking of instantaneous creation as in the Myth of Genesis. But my personal myth is of gradual "Intelligent Evolution" instead of "Intelligent Design". I can go into much deeper detail, if your patience has any elasticity remaining.
Re: Agnosticism
agnosticism is more to do with the concept of knowledge than it is a deity really. — Mark Dennis
Yes. For me, as an Agnostic Deist, the First Cause of our world is like a Black Box. I can see what came out of it, but I don't know what's inside. So, beyond labeling by its apparent function, world creation, I make no further claims about the mysterious Jack-in-the-Box. I am more concerned with the implications of creation in reality, than in the unknown "Creator" --- which I also call "G*D" for purposes of communication.
Yes. For me, as an Agnostic Deist, the First Cause of our world is like a Black Box. I can see what came out of it, but I don't know what's inside. So, beyond labeling by its apparent function, world creation, I make no further claims about the mysterious Jack-in-the-Box. I am more concerned with the implications of creation in reality, than in the unknown "Creator" --- which I also call "G*D" for purposes of communication.
Re: Agnosticism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... sticism/p2
Is your understanding of "design" "intelligent Evolution"? What would intelligent evolution be, as distinct from just plain evolution? In evolution (as I understand it) things evolve. Are you positing something outside of evolution - that does not evolve - that directs in some way the progress of evolution? And, if that were the case, then how could you call it evolution? — tim wood
In my myth of Intelligent Evolution, the design intent is implemented via a process of gradual construction, not an act of instant magic. That's why I imagine the hypothetical Creator as a Programmer. Yes, the First Cause is outside of evolution. The process is directed like a computer program from the bottom-up, via logical rules and initial conditions. And the ultimate output is specified only in general terms. So I assume the journey is more important than the destination. Perhaps G*D is playing a video game.
You ask a lot of questions. I have a lot of answers. Here's just a sampler :
Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essay ... 120106.pdf
The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Is your understanding of "design" "intelligent Evolution"? What would intelligent evolution be, as distinct from just plain evolution? In evolution (as I understand it) things evolve. Are you positing something outside of evolution - that does not evolve - that directs in some way the progress of evolution? And, if that were the case, then how could you call it evolution? — tim wood
In my myth of Intelligent Evolution, the design intent is implemented via a process of gradual construction, not an act of instant magic. That's why I imagine the hypothetical Creator as a Programmer. Yes, the First Cause is outside of evolution. The process is directed like a computer program from the bottom-up, via logical rules and initial conditions. And the ultimate output is specified only in general terms. So I assume the journey is more important than the destination. Perhaps G*D is playing a video game.
You ask a lot of questions. I have a lot of answers. Here's just a sampler :
Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essay ... 120106.pdf
The EnFormAction Hypothesis : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html
Re: Phil Forum : Agnosticism
May I ask how you establish and navigate the boundary between fanciful and actual? You already have the fanciful side, and more power to you! But try to move it to the actual and, you know, there are difficulties with that. . . .Or simply own them as beliefs — tim wood
I navigate the rocky shoals between evidence and speculation, between fact & faith, in the same way physicists do with such far-out notions as Dark Matter. They logically infer the existence of some undetectable locus of gravity, but so far have found no hard evidence for their hypothetical WIMPS. They know what Dark Matter does, but they still don't know what it is.
Likewise, Darwin proposed a detailed theory to explain the Origin of Species. But, to date, scientists have not observed the emergence of any new species. Which is to be expected, because speciation takes thousands of generations. Nevertheless, biologists have concluded that "nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution". That's a profession of faith.
Unfortunately, since my hypothetical First Cause is defined as outside the limits of space-time, I have no reason to expect to find any hard evidence to support my theory. I know what G*D does, but not what it is. Nevertheless, I have concluded that nothing in Reality makes sense, except in the light of Ideality. Which is the the axiom of Enformationism. That's my profession of (provisional) faith -- subject to new information of course.
PS___I also delineate the boundary between proven science and my unproven fantasy of creation by labeling it a Myth, which may be "true" metaphorically, if not literally.
Enformationism : a worldview or belief system grounded on the assumption that Information, rather than Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be a successor to the 19th century paradigm of Materialism, and to the ancient philosophy of Spiritualism.
I navigate the rocky shoals between evidence and speculation, between fact & faith, in the same way physicists do with such far-out notions as Dark Matter. They logically infer the existence of some undetectable locus of gravity, but so far have found no hard evidence for their hypothetical WIMPS. They know what Dark Matter does, but they still don't know what it is.
Likewise, Darwin proposed a detailed theory to explain the Origin of Species. But, to date, scientists have not observed the emergence of any new species. Which is to be expected, because speciation takes thousands of generations. Nevertheless, biologists have concluded that "nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution". That's a profession of faith.
Unfortunately, since my hypothetical First Cause is defined as outside the limits of space-time, I have no reason to expect to find any hard evidence to support my theory. I know what G*D does, but not what it is. Nevertheless, I have concluded that nothing in Reality makes sense, except in the light of Ideality. Which is the the axiom of Enformationism. That's my profession of (provisional) faith -- subject to new information of course.
PS___I also delineate the boundary between proven science and my unproven fantasy of creation by labeling it a Myth, which may be "true" metaphorically, if not literally.
Enformationism : a worldview or belief system grounded on the assumption that Information, rather than Matter, is the basic substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be a successor to the 19th century paradigm of Materialism, and to the ancient philosophy of Spiritualism.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests