Theistic agnostics?

[professor frink]

This might be a stupid question, but I am wondering if there are people who believe in god,but accept that there might not be a god? Would this be a theistic agnostic?

 

[Dracil]

To an extent? I mean, a lot of people like to group agnostics with weak atheists, so why not group agnostics with weak theists too, depending on which way they lean?

But I do think that most of us are agnostic in some way. I've also heard of the knowledge/belief distinction for this. Agnostic in knowledge, but theistic in belief.

 

[Spike~]

I am open to all possibilities.

 

[Routerider]

This might be a stupid question, but I am wondering if there are people who believe in god,but accept that there might not be a god? Would this be a theistic agnostic?

This sums me up in a nutshell. I think there is a Creator but I certainly cannot put my finger on who/what this Creator is and what it wants from us if anything. I completely accept the idea that God very well may not exist...I'm having a fun time trying to figure out whether I'm wrong on right...and I hope someday to know for sure.

 

[FordPrefect]

You have hit the nail on the head of the problem of the modern definition of agnostic. The "true" definition is not-gnostic. The gnostics thought they could know the nature of god through mysticism, and other means. In that sense agnosticism would be the belief that God's nature is not knowable since he is so different than us, but you could still believe in him, actually to say that a being's nature is too complex for us to know implies (or is it explicit) that the being exists. Therefore the only type of agnostic possible is theistic (or deistic I guess.)

To not know if a god exists or not but to choose to believe it is Theism or Deism, depending on the type of god chosen. To not know if a god exists or not, but deferring to believe in one for no real reason is Weak Atheism. To "know" that there is no god is Strong Atheism. And finally to believe there is a god, but to refuse to accept that god as god is Anti-Theism (or Deism yet again)

Of course, YMMV.

 

[professor frink]

Thanks for the responses guys The thought just sort of popped into my head last night that I generally associate agnostic with not believing in god because most of the religious people I have met are absolute in the belief in god.

 

[jon1101]

I consider myself a theistic agnostic, though I typically don't use the term unless I'm in a position to further explain myself. I understand that knowledge of the supernatural is epistemologically tricky, and that I'll never possess such knowledge similar to my knowledge of empirical things. I understand that, as far as I can tell, my ability to know cannot extend beyond the phenomenal (that is, beyond my subjective perception of purportedly objective being). From this position, I ascertain that I cannot speak of predicates to anything supernatural. Therefore I cannot claim the ability to speak of predicates to the word "God." An interesting result from this line of reasoning, however, is that strong agnosticism is as off limits as absolutist theism. If the term "God" must be left without predicates, then I cannot claim God to be unknowable. I'm left in a sort of equilibrium.

But that only speaks of my knowledge of God. Belief is a different matter entirely. I believe in God because I am inclined to. I believe in God because I value philosophy which orders the universe and explains the concept of value itself more than I value the ability to empirically prove all of my beliefs. I do not claim to possess knowledge of God, but I still believe.

-Jon

 

[Magisterium]

actually, you guys seem to be forgetting that there's another section of Theism called Deism. As I understand it, many of the US's founding fathers and the fraternal organization of "freemasonry" are deistic in nature. Deism professes a belief in a supreme being, but posits that this being is unknowable. It therefore, effectively discredits all organized religions which claim to know. It's a curious belief system (at least from my Christian standpoint) in that it allows one to credit a supreme being for creating the world without having to be accountable to it for one's behavior. Convienient it is, but my jury's still out on it's reasonability...

 

[sparklecat]

Yes. I was a Christian agnostic. All it takes is a willingness to admit you could be wrong

 

[jon1101]

actually, you guys seem to be forgetting that there's another section of Theism called Deism. As I understand it, many of the US's founding fathers and the fraternal organization of "freemasonry" are deistic in nature. Deism professes a belief in a supreme being, but posits that this being is unknowable. It therefore, effectively discredits all organized religions which claim to know. It's a curious belief system (at least from my Christian standpoint) in that it allows one to credit a supreme being for creating the world without having to be accountable to it for one's behavior. Convienient it is, but my jury's still out on it's reasonability...

I definitely have deistic tendencies, but the assertion that "God is unknowable" seems too strong for me. Denying God's ability to reveal himself to people violates the philosophy described in my earlier post. Still, when I see things happen, no matter how bizarre or unlikely, I don't generally think "God did it."

I suppose it comes down to my opinion that God works through nature rather than in spite of it. To me it doesn't make a lot of sense to think of an omnipotent deity who runs about breaking his own physical laws of nature when he needs to get his work done. I certainly don't think God is bound by his laws of nature--they're his, why shouldn't he do as he likes with them?--but I don't like to think of a God who manhandles his creation arbitrarily--it seems more like a sign of incompetence than anything else. In that way I am deistic at times, but not a deist.

-Jon

 

[Magisterium]

I definitely have deistic tendencies, but the assertion that "God is unknowable" seems too strong for me. Denying God's ability to reveal himself to people violates the philosophy described in my earlier post. Still, when I see things happen, no matter how bizarre or unlikely, I don't generally think "God did it."

I suppose it comes down to my opinion that God works through nature rather than in spite of it. To me it doesn't make a lot of sense to think of an omnipotent deity who runs about breaking his own physical laws of nature when he needs to get his work done. I certainly don't think God is bound by his laws of nature--they're his, why shouldn't he do as he likes with them?--but I don't like to think of a God who manhandles his creation arbitrarily--it seems more like a sign of incompetence than anything else. In that way I am deistic at times, but not a deist.

-Jon

Actually, the "laws" of nature are not "laws" at all. The idea behind law is that laws define what should happen. Science has no way of arbitrating what nature "aught to do". Therefore, our scientific natural "laws" are merely an observation of what does happen as opposed to what should necessarilly happen.

I say this only to primer the fact that when "God" chooses to do something out of the ordinary, he is not breaking a law so much as simply doing something unexpected.

 

[jon1101]

Actually, the "laws" of nature are not "laws" at all. The idea behind law is that laws define what should happen. Science has no way of arbitrating what nature "aught to do". Therefore, our scientific natural "laws" are merely an observation of what does happen as opposed to what should necessarilly happen.

I say this only to primer the fact that when "God" chooses to do something out of the ordinary, he is not breaking a law so much as simply doing something unexpected.

The laws of nature order the universe. Objects in the universe are bound by them and, if Hawking is to be trusted, these laws are absolute and binding everywhere, so far as we can tell. This is what I meant by the "laws of nature." I certainly don't believe that we have absolute knowledge of these laws, but the consensus is that they exist. My theological point was simply that it seems that an omnipotent God wouldn't need to be constantly breaking the principles that order his own creation--he set it up, so my guess is that he can do what he needs to without doing magic. But of course I don't mean that God is bound by the laws of nature, or that he never tosses them aside completely. My paradigm is simply that things are operating strictly by the laws of nature unless I have a specific reason to think otherwise, which doesn't tend to happen very often at all.

I simply mean to say that I don't think that every strange coincidence or difficult to explain event is a specific act of God popping through his universe to us, or as I said earlier, manhandling his creation. I think he's more subtle than that, but of course that's just my take on things--belief, not knowledge.

-Jon

 

[Voice Of Reason]

I do not believe in a god because I define my beliefs by reason. I do, however, accept that there quite possibly could be a god.

 

[O.F.F.]

Jon1101,

You said:

As I understand it, many of the US's founding fathers and the fraternal organization of "freemasonry" are deistic in nature. Deism professes a belief in a supreme being, but posits that this being is unknowable. It therefore, effectively discredits all organized religions which claim to know. It's a curious belief system (at least from my Christian standpoint) in that it allows one to credit a supreme being for creating the world without having to be accountable to it for one's behavior.

This is true about Freemasonry, here are a few quotes to support it:

Monotheism is the sole dogma of Freemasonry. Belief in one God is required of every initiate, but his conception of the Supreme Being is left to his own interpretation. Freemasonry is not concerned with theological distinctions. This is the basis of our universality.

Grand Lodge of Indiana, Indiana Monitor & Freemason's Guide, 1993 Edition, page 41

"We, as Masons, believe that there is only one Supreme Being. You may refer to that Supreme Being as you please. You may ask the blessings of Jehovah, Allah, Yod, Mohammad, or any other Supreme Being that you believe in. We make no distinctions in what you believe that Supreme Being's name is. This is your preference and the preference of all Masons everywhere.”

William Larson, 33° Kenton Lodge #145, Oregon USA

“You have learned that Freemasonry calls God, ‘The Great Architect of the Universe” (GAOTU). This is the Freemason’s special name for God, because he is universal. He belongs to all men regardless of their religious persuasion. All wise men acknowledge His authority. In his private devotions a Mason will pray to Jehovah, Mohammed, Allah, Jesus or the Deity of his choice. In a Masonic Lodge, however, the Mason will find the name of his Deity within the G.A.O.T.U.”

Allen E. Roberts, The Craft and Its Symbols, page 6

And finally,

“Masonry teaches the practice of all good morals, leaving the interpretation of right and wrong to the individual conscience.”

Grand Lodge of Florida Lodge System of Masonic Education, Bk 1, pg. 7

 

[draper]

I'm Agnostic, but I'm actually thinking its very possible that there is some sort of Thesic being.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

agnostics by their very nature admit the possibility that there might be a god out in the universe, they just say that their is insuficiant proof to make a metaphysical assertion. So a theistic Agnostic woould be an oxy-moron by definition.

Also, what of us that base our beliefs of of knowledge, admiting that they don't know in everything else?