Concerning Agnostics

[Data]

The term agnostic, first popularized by the 19th century scientist Thomas H. Huxley, comes from the Greek word agnostos, "unknown." To Huxley the church claimed gnosis or "knowledge," and part of his reasoning for taking a contradictory position had to do with the hypocrisy and cruelty - "the violations of every obligation of humanity" perpetrated by the churches. It is quite possible that many agnostics see those claiming knowledge regarding the existence of God as enemies of reason and justice. At 2 Timothy 3:5 the Apostle Paul warned the early Christians against those having a godly devotion but proving false to its power. The cruelty, hypocrisy and destructive nature of man isn't exclusive to religion, but can be observed on a greater level in politics. It isn't really fair to judge the possible existence of Jehovah God on the failings of man.

Agnosticism can be summed up as the view that we don't know whether or not there is a God. Like atheism, it begs the question of what exactly a god is and only if you apply the definition of a god in a very limited and inaccurate way can such concepts as atheism and agnosticism be even remotely plausible. Variations of the Hebrew word el, such as Elohim, for example, translated as god, simply mean "mighty, strong." A god, then, is anything or anyone venerated or at the least attributed a might greater than that of the one attributing might. Unlike atheism which simply rejects the existence of any gods agnosticism at least seems to question the possible existence of a specific God, that of the Bible.

To me agnosticism is an apathetic approach to the religious concept of veneration. Belief or disbelief, when put to the test, are more opinion than anything. The theist may think they "know" God and actually know nothing about God, the atheist may think they "know" there are no gods and be every bit as lacking in accurate knowledge as the theist. "Knowledge," in the form of intimate desire for a specific ideology or paradigm then, in and of themselves have very little to do with an intellectually honest approach to the question of God and whether or not accurate knowledge of that God can be achieved. It seems that the only vantage point for the search for God has been either of the quixotic; the idealistic to an impractical degree, or the mundane; the irreligious.

I propose to the agnostic that accurate knowledge of the possible existence of Jehovah God can be, not only gained, but tested as well. Only then can belief or disbelief be well founded. But perhaps Huxley's problem with the church, well founded as it most certainly was, was more to do with his own stagnant perspective on science as infallible, using that illusory worldview as a crutch just as the theist might misapply faith.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Agnosticism can be summed up as the view that we don't know whether or not there is a God. Like atheism, it begs the question of what exactly a god is and only if you apply the definition of a god in a very limited and inaccurate way can such concepts as atheism and agnosticism be even remotely plausible. Variations of the Hebrew word el, such as Elohim, for example, translated as god, simply mean "mighty, strong." A god, then, is anything or anyone venerated or at the least attributed a might greater than that of the one attributing might. Unlike atheism which simply rejects the existence of any gods agnosticism at least seems to question the possible existence of a specific God, that of the Bible.

To me agnosticism is an apathetic approach to the religious concept of veneration. Belief or disbelief, when put to the test, are more opinion than anything. The theist may think they "know" God and actually know nothing about God, the atheist may think they "know" there are no gods and be every bit as lacking in accurate knowledge as the theist. "Knowledge," in the form of intimate desire for a specific ideology or paradigm then, in and of themselves have very little to do with an intellectually honest approach to the question of God and whether or not accurate knowledge of that God can be achieved. It seems that the only vantage point for the search for God has been either of the quixotic; the idealistic to an impractical degree, or the mundane; the irreligious.

I've been wanting to make a video about this topic for over a year because I believe agnosticism is needed more than ever, and not just on God's existence but even in politics and other areas. I've committed to releasing that video by the end of this month.

I'll go into some details in general, but basically, my thesis is that agnosticism is not entirely against certainty, but rather it is against a certain type of certainty which is dogma. Dogmatism involves unwarranted certainty. On that view, the issue for Huxley was not that atheists and theists claimed to know anything, but rather it was that their certainty was oftentimes based on speculation, beliefs, and/or unproven ideologies which they treated as fact, and perhaps with an unquestioning attitude to go with it. I can't wait to get this message out, along with the evidence (from Huxley's writings) that I have for it.

I propose to the agnostic that accurate knowledge of the possible existence of Jehovah God can be, not only gained, but tested as well. Only then can belief or disbelief be well founded. But perhaps Huxley's problem with the church, well founded as it most certainly was, was more to do with his own stagnant perspective on science as infallible, using that illusory worldview as a crutch just as the theist might misapply faith.

I'm in agreement as far as God being knowable if or when there is logic and evidence for it. From my experience, when you break down the theists and atheists view, you tend to find some speculation being passed off as knowledge. What tends to separate the agnostic from theists and atheists is that agnostics are less dogmatic which leads the agnostic to not rely on unproven ideologies or not take them as facts, especially ones that can't be questioned.

In my view, science is like the standard bearer for reliable knowledge, and none of its fields have claimed to be able to explain all of the big questions of life. So it's reasonable for me to think that no one has succeeded when the best in the field (science) have been unsuccessful thus far.

ANd keep in mind, I don't even want to take away from how agnosticism is commonly understood today. It's common usage to say that agnosticism is limited to uncertainty, and many agnostics follow that accordingly. I take my understanding of Huxley's position as being a separate version of agnosticism, and I'd argue that it's the best one.

 

[Data]

I'll go into some details in general, but basically, my thesis is that agnosticism is not entirely against certainty, but rather it is against a certain type of certainty which is dogma. Dogmatism involves unwarranted certainty. On that view, the issue for Huxley was not that atheists and theists claimed to know anything, but rather it was that their certainty was oftentimes based on speculation, beliefs, and/or unproven ideologies which they treated as fact, and perhaps with an unquestioning attitude to go with it. I can't wait to get this message out, along with the evidence (from Huxley's writings) that I have for it.

I'm not that familiar with Huxley so I would be interested in your work, but the video I posted is an accurate representation of what I see looking back in history. Hmmm. How do I explain. Biblical skeptics tend to make the assumption that the Bible was only a record of a primitive superstitious people trying to figure out their world because they couldn't understand it. That doesn't really make any sense because they knew their world much better than we know their world and since their world was much simpler, they knew their world better than we know ours. Regarding creation, why would they care more than we do? Thus, evolution is only us doing what we accuse them wrongfully of doing. Has that become dogmatic presentation?

So, we have Moses, with the creation account - followed by global expansion and the creation of societies; and then we have Empedocles, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, and Aristotle - speculation on the basics of evolution. Fast forward to the first and second industrial revolution and view the landscape, as it were. Following a long bloody history of theocratic control and oppression, aforementioned as global expansion and eventually having nothing to do with Moses - you have several aspects of society's evolution coming to a head.

Black American progress is remarkable. They're making education work, becoming judges, governors, they're competition. We have a prudish society. They cover piano legs for decency. Steam, oil, international travel. We need education to make obedient manufacturers and consumers. Not intelligent people. Ships from faraway places bring exotic animals for us to see with our very own eyes for the first time. Favorite of those, the adorable human-like chimpanzee. Put some clothes on it.

What do we need to create from all of this. Inferior races to squash the competition, obedient manufacturers and consumers who have no belief system, no matter what that might be - kill God, country and the family. Distraction, division, and banks.

Truth doesn't matter. Nothing is real.

I'm in agreement as far as God being knowable if or when there is logic and evidence for it. From my experience, when you break down the theists and atheists view, you tend to find some speculation being passed off as knowledge. What tends to separate the agnostic from theists and atheists is that agnostics are less dogmatic which leads the agnostic to not rely on unproven ideologies or not take them as facts, especially ones that can't be questioned.

It's good that they should be questioned, not good that proven is a requirement because it's pretentious. Itself dogmatic. Proven is virtually synonymous with the illusion, the appeal to authority, of the proven.

In my view, science is like the standard bearer for reliable knowledge, and none of its fields have claimed to be able to explain all of the big questions of life.

There are no big questions of life, there's only living. The big questions are the distractions that become dogmatic. Science isn't reliable at all, especially if you distort it into a belief paradigm. My family has a history of diverticulitis. My grandmother died young with it. My younger brother died of colon cancer at 41. So, I started getting colonoscopies after 40. Confirmed diagnosis, was told, sternly, not to eat seeds. They thought the seeds become trapped in the pits of the colon. So, I nod and say okay, and continue eating seeds as always. Six months later, eat seeds! they say. The seeds, they now think, scrapes the pits clean, rather than infecting them. Okay. I nod. What was the evidence? How did it change? What does it matter? It doesn't.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

My family has a history of diverticulitis.

Sorry to hear about the family you've lost from that. I encountered a lot of patients with diverticulitis/other stomach issues when I used to work at a hospital. lt was unbearable for some of them which I guess is why they were hospitalized.

not good that proven is a requirement because it's pretentious. Itself dogmatic. Proven is virtually synonymous with the illusion, the appeal to authority, of the proven.

I think it's a necessary standard to have at least in a intellectual context, such as in a debate, or in other matters were accuracy and truth matters. There's even more to Huxleys agnosticism than just the evidentialism part, and I intend to reveal all of that on this forum on social media platforms... And I hope that I'm a good example of agnosticism in practice.