Is it possible to not have any beliefs?

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's part of Huxley's agnostic principle...
"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.”


I think most can handle not saying that they "know" something if they lack the logic and evidence to support it. But can you also be without a "belief" about something unproven? I know there is a benefit to staying away from beliefs, especially towards matters that have factual information available for it, but is not having beliefs (in intellectual matters) practical?

Let's discuss.

*Keep in mind that Huxley's principle here only applied in an intellectual context (like in a debate, or when doing research, as opposed to day to day living). Like in what's quoted here:
"Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position..."

​

 

[bbyrd009]

Here's part of Huxley's agnostic principle...
"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.”


I think most can handle not saying that they "know" something if they lack the logic and evidence to support it. But can you also be without a "belief" about something unproven? I know there is a benefit to staying away from beliefs, especially towards matters that have factual information available for it, but is not having beliefs (in intellectual matters) practical?

Let's discuss.

*Keep in mind that Huxley's principle here only applied in an intellectual context (like in a debate, or when doing research, as opposed to day to day living). Like in what's quoted here:
"Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position..."

​

Well i think its ok to admit that at its heart, a theory is a belief? So i have plenty of beliefs myself, i just dont get married to them

 

[AgnosticBoy]

But can you also be without a "belief" about something unproven?

I don't believe it's possible to not have any beliefs because they can sometimes form on their own. Take for instance, beliefs about mundane things such as making plans for tomorrow. Such thinking come with an implicit belief that there is a future. However, this doesn't mean that you'll have beliefs about every matter or that you can't choose to believe (or discard a belief), at times.

So I think Huxley's principle of not having a belief on "intellectual matters" is practical to a degree. You can choose have an absence of belief, and choose to remain in that neutral state, just as many atheists claim to neither believe or disbelieve in God's existence. I suspect that Huxley stayed clear of labels not only because of unproven views that comes with those labels, but also because it's easy to remain neutral if you don't attach yourself to any label. Labels tend to come with a whole package of ideas, and that tends to influence how you think about the world.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Well i think its ok to admit that at its heart, a theory is a belief? So i have plenty of beliefs myself, i just dont get married to them

Agreed! Kinda goes with my point about labels. When you adopt a label, a lot of times that leads people to accept the package of beliefs that comes with it, not to mention the peer pressure of being on a side. It's like picking a political side.

But I do think, it is possible to be on a side or group and not cling to it in any partisan way. Agnostic atheists and agnostic Christians or moderate Republicans and Democrats might be the closest examples.

 

[William]

I think what you might be pointing to re beliefs are faith-based beliefs. I would not include the belief that tomorrow will eventuate as faith-based because every day we each have experienced has been followed by a tomorrow so it becomes a matter of fact.
Even if we consider the fact that we will die and we do not know when that might be, tomorrow will still happen even if we don't get to experience it just as we know yesterday's happened before we came along and every yesterday was once a tomorrow.

The belief that there is or isn't a creator might be considered faith-based unless one can argue why one has belief or lacks belief which doesn't require faith.
But is lacking belief in existing in a creation a belief in itself? I think it could be, if there is enough philosophical evidence to support the idea we exist within a created thing but the evidence is rejected because it doesn't fit in with/isn't an aspect of the materialist creed.
Evidence is generally interpreted through philosophy and philosophy could be said to be the instrument through which beliefs are formed, so one could examine which philosophical platforms do not make it easy for the practitioners to let go of their beliefs and view the evidence differently and change ones philosophical platform to better suit the evidence.

Both supernaturalist and materialist philosophies tend to claim that there are only the two philosophies which anyone can choose/support. The claim is belief-based as far as I can tell, and non-factual.

Another belief which agnostics often think is true, is that agnosticism is a subset of atheism, whereas I think agnosticism should recognize itself as the third position which could be useful in forming a philosophy which bridges the differences between those other two warring factions, so perhaps beliefs aren't so much of an issue if one adopts belief which is primarily concerned with discovering what is true from what is false, and building upon those things which are known to be true...and...if something is true, why shouldn't it be believed in?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I think what you might be pointing to re beliefs are faith-based beliefs. I would not include the belief that tomorrow will eventuate as faith-based because every day we each have experienced has been followed by a tomorrow so it becomes a matter of fact.

I think that is an important distinction. I was thinking about beliefs in terms of only an "opinion". Now that I reread Huxley's statement, I now see room for that to work.

"It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.”

Here, Huxley is not saying to have no beliefs (as I previously thought based on one definition), but rather he's saying that you can believe something if you have scientific grounds for it. That type of belief is distinguished from the faith-based or opinion type of beliefs that you bring up!