Believers, Agnostics & Atheists - Understanding the Difference
72Divisive Concepts
Take one hundred people. Throw an idea at them. Watch them divide into three camps. Three, not two. Group one believes the idea is true. Group two believes the idea is false. Group three reserves judgement.
Of course, for this simplistic model to apply, the idea itself should be simple, not one that allows for responses like 'true up to a point'. Simple examples might be the moon is made of cheese, or Jesus was born of a virgin, or, that most contentious of all, God exists.
Cheese exists
God exists
This is the archetypal existential statement. Although there are three possible responses to it (yes, no, don't know), logically there are only two possible situations (God exists, God does not exist). Now let's talk about cheese.
If I say cheese exists, again there are three possible responses. Cheese lovers shout- yes, cheese exists! Cheese deniers- no, cheese is a lie! Cheese innocents- perhaps cheese exists, who knows? (but they won't shout; it's not important enough!)
If I then produce half a Camembert and a pound of Stilton and parade them round the room for all to see, the Innocents will say, you were right. Cheese exists. So will most of the Cheese deniers (but grudgingly, because they have lost face). Most, but maybe not all. One or two will probably refuse to see, smell or taste the cheese and will hold fast to their position that cheese does not exist. And everyone else will call them mad.
The point here is that all I had to do to end the argument was produce the cheese for all to see. To prove existence we need merely point to one example. But proving non-existence is logically impossible. Ninety-nine empty cheese-boards do not preclude the existence of one well-laden one. (I like cheese - can you tell?) Now, back to God.
God exists
The statement, God exists, is logically identical to cheese exists and therefore it also divides the world into three camps:
- Believers, who 'know' that the proposition is true and God exists
- Atheists, who 'know' that the proposition is false and God does not exist
- Agnostics, who do not claim to know if God exists or not
Please note - Thus far, we've been dealing with absolutes, not probabilities. Later, we'll look at statements like God probably exists, but not yet. Also, we're saying nothing about second order effects like zeal. Some people believe in God harder than others, but that's psychological, not logical.
Believers, Agnostics, Atheists
Having divided the population into three groups by their response to the proposition God exists, let's now look more closely at each group in turn.
Believers
The proposition was God exists. There are many names for God. So our group of believers will include Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus and many more. Some will believe that only the names are different and so all believe in the same God. Others believe that only their version of God is true, so most of the Believers group members are 'deceived'. Wars are fought over this. But back to the cheese. Let him who believes in the Camembert God simply reveal Him (not a book about Him, but Holy Camembert Himself) to the others, and all is settled. It hasn't happened yet. The fact is, believers have no proof, only faith.
Agnostics
You might think that this group is more homogeneous than the believers, but that's not necessarily true. A large number of Agnostics, perhaps the largest number, are apathetic; the proposal, God exists, simply doesn't interest them. Probably, they don't even know they're agnostic! Another Agnostic group is interested in the question, and would welcome an answer, but is not willing to make a leap of faith in the absence of evidence. This group is truly Agnostic (with a capital A), because they know they don't (can't) know. Within this group of true Agnostics there is a smaller group of Rationalists who actively try to espouse no belief (on any subject) without evidence.
Atheists
Atheists are prepared, even willing, to stand up and say there is no God. This is fundamentally different from the Agnostic (or Rationalist) position. It is, on a first analysis, also very hard to justify. It is hard to justify because, as we have seen, non-existence cannot be proved. It is logically impossible. (Remember the ninety-nine empty cheese boards?) But notice, I did say, on a first analysis, which brings us back to the question we left open earlier - probability.
Add Probability
The Atheist who says there is no God is not necessarily unaware of the logical falacy of the statement. The thinking Atheist, by such a statement, means God's non-existence is far more likely than his existence. This might seem not an unreasonable position. However, at best it is intuitive. S/he really means My feeling is that God's non-existence is far more likely than his existence. You might think I'm being very pedantic here, but consider this: no-one has the ability even to work out the probability of finding a Ford Escort parked on the White House lawn on Christmas day. There are too many variables. Anyone who pretends to be able to understand the probability of God's existence is a charlatan. The mathematics to do it doesn't exist. For this reason, I think that the strict Atheist position is impossible to justify.
- Agnostics (and Rationalists) make no leap of faith. Their position avoids 'belief' and is logically sound.
- Believers make a leap of faith (belief) that could (in theory) be justified by manifestation. This is also logically sound.
- Atheists make a leap of faith (disbelief) that can never be justified (even in theory) by events. Their position is therefore logically unsound.
Postscript - Falsification
The above analysis could have been written almost any time in the last several hundred years. However, 20th Century Falsification (after Popper) should be taken into account.
If someone says there is no God, not as a belief but as a falsifiable proposal, that is a perfectly sound position. A single verified manifestation of God falsifies the proposal, and so knowledge advances. Strictly, this is not an Atheist position, but a Rationalist one, because it is neither necessary nor desirable (in falsification theory) to believe your proposal true. It is simply a way of testing the water.
Similarly, a Rationalist could put forward the proposal God is omnipresent, without having to believe it. The proposal is falsified by the discovery of a single half brick that can be shown not to contain God. However, the problem here is that no-one yet knows how to test for the presence of God in a brick.
Thank you for reading.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Paraglider, you're making the assumption that no one has ever seen God, and therefore have had no direct evidence for or against the proposition that He (or she or it) exists.
The irony of it is that while most believers have never seen God, some unbelievers have!
I read a biography once of Felix Dzerzhisky, the head of the secret police under Lenin. Even though Dzezhinsky was an avowed atheist, one day the virgin Mary appeared to him. This, however, did not change his official position on religion.
Great hub Parglider! I like how you explain each of the three groups. One guy I know is Agnostic and openly says so, unless he is around people he wants to impress. I am not sure why most of the time he is honest about who he is, but then lies about going to church in front of certain people. It is sort of funny to see him do this.
I agree with Vitaeb-- Explains succinctly why and how those who approach life in a generally rational way can also believe fully in God. I.E., Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein.
glad someone is explaining agnosticism better than dismissing it as a wishy-washy-be-on-the-safe-side-and-pray-just-in-case kind of thing. I think I'm an agnostic pantheist. . and in seeing the universe as god, it is a belief in god which has evidence to back it up.
Lita - both Carl Sagan and Einstein (and Stephen Hawking, Gandhi and Spinoza) were pantheists.
Vitaeb, Aya, SweetiePie, Lita - thank you all for your comments. I have a lot of time for ideas of 'everything is God, God is everything'. It seems more 'grown up' than the Judaeo/Christian 'personal God'. But, on the other hand, it changes nothing. It just applies the name 'God' to the cosmos. No differentiation, nothing learned.
Aya, I am not making that assumption. But I am saying that no-one who has 'seen God' has ever managed to show this God to anyone else. Too many people say 'God came to me in a dream', or 'in a vision'. Why not in a Land Cruiser?
But again. I was trying, in this hub, to be fair. Exactly how did the Virgin 'appear' to Dzezhinsky? Bodily, with footprints and fingerprints? Or just as an 'apparition'?
This is very clearly stated and should help people understand each other, but I fear it won't. I'm slowly coming to the opinion that many people don't want to understand each other (at least in the U.S.), but prefer instead to choose a favorite extreme position then defend it to the death no matter what anyone else feels or thinks.
It isn't much fun.
I'd put myself down as agnostic with a strong interest in subjective experiences and what philosophers call phenomenology--roughly, the philosophy of experience. I think reason is a tool and like any tool, it might not be the best one in every instance. Like the saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. But recent attempts to put reason on a par with faith in regard to how science is taught in schools (and all sorts of other things) are IMO major distortions of fact. Reason is what we have, epistemologically speaking, and it is the 'bones' of science.
People are very confused about knowledge these days. Great hub. Maybe it will help.
questfortruth - my own preference is Rationalism- being open to everything but not closing the question, pro or con, where doubt remains.
Pam - reason is not everything, but subjectivism is less, insofar as subjective experiences cannot be shared. At the risk of being 'blasphemous' doesn't God have some responsibility too, to manifest himself to all, in consciousness, not to a favoured few, in dreams and visions?
I, too, agree that the Hub is well written, but seems to exclude people like me in the description of Agnostic.
I do not deny the existence of God, but rather believe that God is a combination of Mother Nature, Father Time, and infinity (all possibility). To that end, I would suggest that monotheists and atheists fall short in their religious beliefs by focusing only on the "one" or "zero," which, if considered in binary theory, combined are all possibility. Therefore, God both exists and does not exist as both are contained in infinity, as are purple, flying elephants. We can make elephants purple, and we also can make them fly, though the landing is rather inhumane unless it is highly considered. Also considering how agitated elephants may get becoming purple, it is both easier and more humane to make dead, purple elephants fly.
I agree that belief or non-belief are both leaps of faith, and that the more we know (science) the more we realize how little we know. However, much of that is from our humanly senses, which, according to Socrates, serve only to filter reality. Perhaps knowing that Aristotle is both the father of biology and the source of verification for several of the fallacies in the Bible, we can understand that there is a common source for both belief and non-belief.
I would also like to add Charles Darwin to the list of pantheists. The Theology major worked hard to pass on the understanding that evolution consists of two factors: (1) children have characteristics of both parents, but are identicle to neither, and (2) dead animals don't give birth. His declaration after the death of his and his cousin's daughter that "there is no beneficent God" is submitted as proof that he was atheist, despite that he said "agnostic is a better description" of his beliefs many years later.
Those, however, are minor points of contention with what I would regard as a superb Hub!
"...doesn't God have some responsibility too, to manifest himself to all, in consciousness, not to a favoured few, in dreams and visions?"
Well, I think, yes. I'm a little perturbed with the elusiveness of the Big Guy myself. Maybe he needs a better cell phone or something? And what's up with all the drama? And the Always Be Closing salespeople? If you're already omnipotent and omnipresent do you really need such a pushy sales staff?
Nicely separated Para. I can see you're going to start getting arguments on behalf of one party or another, but, sticking straight to the point of what you wrote, I think you summed it up nicely on the basis of what you were dilineating.
Frankly, if I was going to give you any flack for anything in here, I'd challenge your use of the term "existential" at the outset rather than something like "metaphysical," "ontological," or perhaps most accurately "epistemological" instead. And I'd only do that because this hub seems more focused on how we know what we think we know than on what that knowledge ultimately means to us (even though the implications are discussed). While theistic and atheistic existentialism are part of the larger body of existentialism as a whole, I'm not sure we can say that "God esists" is THE archetypal existential statement.
I could be wrong, but thought I'd throw that at you just to give you something to chew on besides, "Nuh uh, God does too" or "... does not."
Aya, I'm just wondering if Felix happened to get a snapshot of the venerable Mary or maybe even a little video footage. Or a least a witness to corroborate.
Paraglider, ColdwarBaby, as far as I remember in the biography, he saw a vision. And yes, it was during a very emotional time in his life. Please, understand, I'm not saying that it "really happened", just that he experienced it happening. My point is that even not all those who have had these subjective experiences, actually change their official stand, because there are political ramifications.
Whether you have a visionary temperament and actual "supernatural" experiences under your belt has nothing to do with the position you choose to espouse. Most card carrying Christians have never seen Christ (or a lesser god from the Catholic pantheon) and are ready to crucify (or burn at the stake) anyone who claims to have had that experience.
The official miracles are the only ones that are given credence.
Now, just to be fair, ask yourself, if something weird happened to you, would you believe it was real only if you had corroborating evidence? Or would you trust in your five senses?
LOL, Pam:
Those pushy sales people aren't trying to sell anything I believe in! And I think many intelligent people with any mixed belief, personalized belief, or belief in any sort of sophisticated 'ism' (which I've never been really fond of, either, in regards to anything--gimme freedom or at least an illusion of freedom) CAN agree on that.
If anything, like Deepak Chopra, they are more likely to classify those pushy ones as 'shadow believers.' Like he recently did with Mrs. Palin. Funny, there is also a writer on hubpages calling Obama the 'anti -Christ.' His hub on said subject debuted at 69--one wonders what that is about.
LOL Shades, "dilineating" :O
You are killing me :D
Well Aya, I've had a couple of weird things happen in my life. Since they were completely subjective with no evidence to prove they happened and no corroborating witnesses, I will never be able to prove or disprove them. Do I believe they happened? Something happened. I have no real idea what. Since I can't reproduce the events at will to test their "reality" I don't feel it's worth much concern.
Now, if strange or paranormal events started occurring in my life on a regular basis, I would make every effort to document them in any way I could. Meanwhile, I try to keep in mind that the five senses can often be deceived.
Tom, Pam, Shadesbreath, ColdWarBaby, Aya, Lita, Misha - Thanks, all for commenting and in some cases commenting again. Usually I answer every comment, but in this case, where everyone will have a personal viewpoint, I prefer neither to argue nor to justify. I enjoyed reading all the comments. You convinced me the hub was worth writing. However, I wakened up this morning realising that there was more I wanted to say, so I'm just about to add a postscript.
Just caught up with your hub! My concept of God has changed so radically throughout the years, from seeing him in the sky in my younger years, to God being in everything, to us being God in expression. I can't form an "image" of God these days, but nevertheless, even if I can't see the wind, I see its rustle in the leaves-and God or Awareness is pretty much like this to me.
I don't know what category I fall into, guess, maybe a tad in the mystic side, but yet accepting that as we evolve, we often let go of what we onced believed in, which is sometimes scary, as finding that reality or truth is not what we thought it was, leaves one basically empty.
Thanks for this hub, made me pause and ponder!
Nice hub from the standpoint of clarity on those often used words in the religious forums. Won't stop the argueing I bet.
Damnit Misha, don't spell check me. :P (That's what I get for not re-reading what I write.)
I still cannot classify myself with any of the three groups though I have tried on all the shoes. I just wonder if it is as sound arguement to say (this is for myself)
I am gnostic, I believe (know) My God, I am agnostic in which case I do not believe in your God until you show me your God, you showed me a book now show me how to apply this to what doesn't exist, which is sort of an athiest statement, but...
I don't feel any need to prove that My God exist, in some ways take offense when people say that I have a false God and that theirs is the right one but have never, even on a manifest level seen this God, so that is where I say I am an atheist'ish (lol), your God does not exist, my God is my God and if you want me to believe in your God then show me your God whether manifest or some other unmistakable miracle that could only lead to accept it.
I am alway intrigued by what you have to say, what would you have to say about this?
VioletSun - thanks. My analysis here is fairly 'Western' and doesn't say too much about mysticism. Mysticism as a philosophy is akin to Idealism, in that it can't be refuted but, being highly subjective, is hard to communicate.
Jewels - nothing will stop the arguing, but sometimes defining the terms helps the arguers to understand each other better!
Shadesbreath - re your earlier comment, I agree. I was using existential to mean 'pertaining to existence', not 'pertaining to existentialism'. Maybe not allowed any more :)
Sandra - Maybe you are a spiritual dilettante? I'd have said gadfly, but the euphonics of the word are wrong for you!
Interesting hub and comments. I have always said I was an atheist when asked - it confuses many people in Asia and elsewhere - it seems to be a very Western concept. The only place where I appeared to shock people was in the US, but I thought it was pretty to rude to ask me which sect of Christianity I belonged ie assumed I was Christian.
I see the problem with logic that I believe in absense of something - but to me agnostiicsm was sitting on the fence - I needed to make a statement as I was brought up Christian.
I guess I apply (and I don't know the right name for it) - the KISS principal of science - you have as many rules you need to make sense of the results - you don't add anything extra. I have simply never had any requierment for the existance of a diety or dieties. I can explain eveything that happens on earth, the universe and to me to laws of nature and the nastiness of humans.
I know there are many people with genuine religous persuasion but in the end religion has been used as a arm of the state to control populations and start wars. I'm with John Lennon : "imagine ... and no religiion too"
Hi Lissie - I tend to describe myself as Rationalist (if asked), but the aim of this hub was more to define and illustrate the terms than to classify people. Imagine is one of the best statements of a true alternative way. http://hubpages.com/hub/Imagine_John_Lennon Thanks for commenting from Down Under - a sensible place!
Well written and well thought out. Now I want some cheese! I think those of us who have tasted cheese would disagree with those who think cheese can not be tasted. Yet, until you have tasted cheese, you cannot know what it tastes like. So it is rational for those who have not tasted cheese to be unable to relate to those who have.
Man, I want some sharp chedder now.
Paraglider, in regards to you postscript, the reason these hypotheses are not falsifiable is that "God" or even "a god" is not well defined.
Ok, ouch- a spiritual delettante or gadfly, a superficial annoyance. Well ok, thanks for you honesty. :(
BDazzler - at least cheese is verifiable, in this world. Who can say the same of God?
Aya - I know. Not now, nor ever shall be, world without end...
Sandra - it was meant as a compliment. You keep us all on our toes :)
I understand what you are saying. All I can say is I have tasted cheese and cannot prove it's existence or flavor to one who has not tasted it. I also understand the frustration of those who hear about how wonderful cheese is, and have not tasted. And I also think people who hold others in disdain for not liking cheese when they have not tasted it, are incorrect. No amount of logic and reason will persuade you that cheese exists or how good it is, unitl you taste it yourself.
I believe it was Plato who told the man in the cave story. I think it's kind of like that.
Well, BD - many millions would like to 'taste cheese', but if the cheese withholds itself from all but a favoured few then it only has itself to blame if many millions disbelieve in it.
More bluntly, you have seen God? Show me.
Have I seen God? Well, I can tell you this. I was sitting in my chair, contemplating the nature of the universe. Suddenly, I felt a Presence unlike anything I had felt before. How can one describe the indescribable? Words fail me. But what I saw and felt was unlike anything I'd seen and felt before. I felt as if hours had passed, but the clock showed only minutes. Then, I was back in my house. When I looked in the mirror my eyes seemed to glow back at me, and I could not bear to see my own reflection.
I have no reason to lie about this. I don't want you to join my church (well, you can if you want, but I'm not recruiting). I don't want you to send me money. I don't have a need to have this experience validated by others. I understand that I have no reason to expect you to believe it. I understand that it would be easy to call this a flight of fancy or an overacitve imagination. I simply say that it is an actual expereince, not an imanginary one.
I can't tell you why I experienced it and others have not. I assure you that it was absolutely not as a result of my own worthieness. But when others tell me they have, I believe them. That's why even though I may disagree with some of Sandra's doctrines, I don't doubt the reality of her experience, or her absolute right to interpret them as she does.
If Charlton turns a stick into a snake to prove that GOD exists, Yul will turn it back into a snake to prove otherwise.
The need to accept by the effectiveness of the proof supplied is purely academical. An exercise involving the versatility of language.
Providing proof with a view to convince is also not just right. This type of convincing will NOT lead to knowing.
It cannot be denied that de-e-e-ep down in the subconscious of the atheist there is a "suspicion" of the existence of GOD.
This suspicion remains "on hold" until such time the need to test it arises. If a calamity arises to which there is no solution within sight, then, and only then does he put that "suspicion" to test.
Then, when unexplainable events occur and the problem vanishes, he is amazed at the logic in the sequence in which these events occurred. Now "he" has more knowledge than he had before. He "KNOWS!"
If Charlton turns a stick into a snake to prove that GOD exists, Yul will turn it back into a snake to prove otherwise. LOL!!!
Anyone can turn milk into cheese to prove that cheese exist, but turning cheese back into milk??? Now that is gross! LOL.
No really, now show me where the milk came from that produced the cheese, I would worship the cow until someone said, why do you worship the cow, the cow is not the chesse! hahahah :)
Cheese and milk are not in the list of accepted tools. Only sticks and snakes are! LMA&HO!
BDazzler, Quicksand, Sandra - thanks for contributing. I suspect that euphoric experiences are a part of consciousness. CS Lewis said much the same thing, using the word 'joy'. He chose to interpret them as evidence for God, Some do, some don't. I think the jury is still out on this question, and probably will be for ever.
Love the new photo! I'm going to have some fine cheese for lunch.
Paraglider, let's try this hypothetical on for size. You are walking down a lonely road at night. Under a street lamp, you find a hunk of cheese. You are very hungry, so you eat it all. The next day you tell all your friends about the marvelous cheese that you consumed. One of your friends is a cheese atheist, another is an agnostic and a third is a cheese believer.
Should they all require you to produce corroborating evidence that you ate cheese last night, before they believe you? What sort of evidence would be sufficient to validate your story? Should you have your stomach pumped? If so, how does this prove you found the cheese under a street lamp? Should you produce a video of yourself eating the cheese in the street? Or, would it require that the same event be duplicated? Should each of your friends be able to find cheese under the same street lamp on consecutive evening walks?
This was a great read. That's all I can say about it.
This is a terrific Hub. I'm personally an agnostic, and I think you summed up "our" position quite nicely. You illustrated the differences nicely, and I'm glad you added that bit about falsifiability at the end.
Aya - I think your example goes back to Paraglider's earlier comment. Only you have the evidence to believe based on that scenario, unless you had credible evidence that could be shared with other people. At any rate, there are lots of different explanations for phenomena; why some people seize onto a very specific narrative that has nothing to do with their experience is odd to me.
I've read about euphoric events, and don't know how some people who have experienced them go on to believe the very specific strictures and tenets of a religion. "That was weird, and I can't explain it...I guess I have to avoid eating shellfish now."
BDazzler - thanks for coming back. I like the way you carry your faith lightly. You seem contented and unthreatened. That's refreshing.
Aya - I think there's no 'should' about it. I don't deny that people have experiences. I've had a few myself. I think that's all part of the package we call consciousness. But _if I were God and wanted to 'save' my creation_ I'd probably look for a way of reaching out to more than one at a time. And if I were omnipotent, I could probably manage that.
Thanks Para, it really is a great hub!
Ray - thanks for the appreciation. There's nothing new here, but I like trying to set things out clearly.
Livelonger - I'm a Rationalist (or try to be) which I think is a rather strict 'church' within Agnosticism. My idea is that people are perfectly entitled to make 'leaps of faith' if they want to. But, having done so, they should not proclaim 'truth' to others who have not made the same leap.
Re: procolmation of truth: I have no problem telling you what I have experienced. I admit, I've made some pretty bold claims. I claimed to have "seen God", I claim to know five people who have been raised from the dead, one as the result of prayers while I was right there. I claim to have seen people healed of incurable diseases. (Not just remission) Those are bold claims.
It is unresonable, however, for me to expect you to believe them unless a) you've had comperable experiences and can relate. OR b) I've earned your trust so you believe me because you've seen that I am basically an honest person and would not lie about something so important.
Furthermore, it is unloving (which is truly the greatest sin) for me to try to make you feel inferior for not having made that leap. And it is also unloving for me to force you through emotional,political, social or military pressure to make you SAY you've made that leap, when you have not.
I did read this hub before you posted it in VP;s hub, but I didn't have any comments to make. I, as a ULC Minister, see truth in all religions and do not believe that any ore the one or are better than anyone else. I have years of experience and studies, on my own, of different religious beliefs. I believe in parts of the Bible and not all of it that we use today. Some of it have been mistranslated and as such I don't think it is directly the Word of God. I think the Word of Gad is us--all of us. I think that is the main reason why it is said to love everyone as yourself because each of us is part of each other and if we do harm to another we really are doing harm to us. When we hold grudges towards others who does it hurt---certainly not the other who has no idea that you are holding a grudge in the first place, but it hurts only you. Everyone has their own path and I think it is a shame that there is such intolerance of that in this world. We are not only hurting ourselves, but the very planet we live on as we war with each other we also destroy the ground and all the beings on and in it. I don't know what category I fit in by your definitions and that is why I didn't have any comments.
BD & LG - all comments are welcome. This hub is about definitions and attempted clarity. It is not about judgment of anyone's position. Logically, I can't justify pre-Popperian atheism, but my postscript opens a door, through falsification. I'm more interested (for now) in helping people understand their stances than in evaluating such stances.
Our posts crossed! I wrote that mine wasn't posted in another hub so disregard it.
LG - no worries - glad to see you here :)
Paraglider, the issue of proof isn't unique to theology. It's a troublesome issue in science, too. Somehow, certain claims are readily accepted, while others require one to overcome a steep burden of proof.
It's all very well and good to say that a theory is never proven -- only not yet falsfied. Once the establishment accepts a theory, those who seek to falsify it have to meet more stringent tests than were required to put the theory into the mainstream in the first place. Meanwhile facts -- things that have actually happened -- require mountains of documentation-- but only if they run counter to theory. If they support the theory, they are accepted with minimal fuss.
Euphoria can be "generated" by a bang on the head in the right spot or by induction. :) Certain herbs or drugs can also produce euphoria. It is caused by disabling elements which tend to block this feeling of "very-well" being.
The events I earlier referred to, had no connection with any kind of euphoria. I claimed that certain events occur mysteriously in the lives of some people. I do not refer to hearing voices or the materialization of stuff and things similar.
It is how problems gets solved by mysterious happenings and how these set off your thinking in some direction.
You could put it down to the unexplainable workings of the mind which alter event frames in space time to favor the owner of that particular mind.
That's just one option. Exploring the other will not be harmful at all I guess. :)
Aya - no problem with that. Thomas Kuhn wrote a lot about it. It is the psychological 'layer' through which we approach logic. When a well established theory is overturned, it takes time and a 'paradigm shift' before it filters through. Outside the scientific community, most people still haven't even caught up with falsification!
Quicksand - subjective experiences affect different people differently. But they don't make a good basis for insisting on knowing 'the truth'.
Lady G - on a closer read of your comment - I think you are clearly in the category of Believer where the dividing question is existence of God. But I've read you many times in the forums and understand that you follow no 'party line' on doctrine. I think yours is a good position.
Paraglider, great hub and I really enjoyed reading over the comments. I think it all comes down to personal experience--there are things we hear and reject, and truths that resonate with each of us, largely determining the filter through which we view the world, and our conception of God, or a lack thereof.
There are three things that came to mind when I was reading this: 1. In college, I had a philosophy professor who delivered a lecture about the inability of the human mind to conceive of something greater than itself--his point being that if there is no god, how did we ever come up with the idea? 2. In Journey of Souls, during an interview with a hypnotized patient, the author asked "Does god exist?" and the response was something along the lines of "that word... has been misused," I think often times people reject the idea of god, because they reject religion, and the notion that god is a old white man sitting up on a cloud, prone to serious temper tantrums and lapses of judgment. 3. In my younger days, I was driving after partaking in an herbal present my sister had sent from Alaska--I should not have been driving, yet I underestimated the potency of her gift. Eventually, I could no longer remember how to operate my vehicle, and I ended up driving through an intersection and toward an open canal--the only thing running through my mind at the time was "god is great, god is great, god... please help me!" then I blacked out, and when I came to, I was parked about a foot in front of the canal, and a woman with long, blond hair asked me to get out of the car. I did, and she walked me across the street, while her husband drove my car out of harms way. The cops showed up a little while later and let me call my roommate to come pick me up--the couple that helped me left when the cops arrived because they had some run ins with the law in their past. By chance, I ended up running into them again a couple of months later. I asked her why she had stopped to help me and her response was "God told me to." Driving home that day, I saw a beautiful rainbow in an otherwise clear, blue sky.
So, long story short, I'm a believer. :)
"God exists" is not logically the same as "cheese exists". God is a metaphysical construct that believers think is real, cheese is a natural object. Faith is a state of mind and investigations on the nature of this state of mind are the way forward. Expressions of faith are merely ejaculations signifying that state of mind - no more meaningful than saying "ouch" if you're hit over the head with a book of fairytales. Faith is seriously over-rated - read some works on Eastern philosopy and meditation to see how low faith is rated compared to knowledge of internal states. The really big delusion propagated by fideist religions is that internal states are due to external, but amusingly metaphysical, causes.
Melissa - thanks for the read and the personal story. I think that inexplicable experiences are part and parcel of consciousness, but how to interpret and react to them is very much an individual choice.
Rychard - logically, or liguistically, the statements are the same, and a publicly verifiable manifestation of God would indeed prove his exisistence. But so far there has been no such manifestation. I'm not expecting one in the foreseeable future! My own position is Rationalist (as far as possible). I try to dispense with belief in all areas where there is no evidence. When people make the leap of faith it is their choice. But from that position, there is no justification for proclaiming to have 'the truth'. Thanks for commenting.
A metaphysical statement is not verifiable. Verifiable means it is able to be verified, not waiting around for it to verify itself - that's just wishful thinking.
That's why I said "It hasn't happened yet"!
Been thiinking about this ... When early europeans began traveling to africa and trading, they heard the legend of a beast with a horn coming out of its forehead. The powdered horn was said to have magical powers. They called it a "unicorn" it was "like a horse" with a horn coming out of it's forehed.
The reality was a rhino. The legends of rhino horn powder seem to match some unicorn legends. The rhino was real, but what was described became legendary.
Yet, people who had seen the rihno could say, yeah, it's kind of like a horse. It has four legs. The head is kinda shaped that way, but not really, and it charges kind of like a horse charges. So, yeah kinda like that.
And when you see the rihno, it's so NOT like a horse, that you can debate whether it was really the source of the unicorn story at all.
Not a perfect analogy. But had I seen the rihno, someone who did not believe in the unicorn legend may say that I was honestly mistaken and write me off entirely.
lol
Good hub paraglider :)
Not so sure you have the atheist's position down perfectly though. I would prefer to say, "I am convinced there is not a god, but am prepared to completely dismiss that idea if the evidence presented itself."
Rather like the scientific method.
This is the best I can come up with based on the information to hand, but if god turned up on a burning chariot, I am all over it. :)
I love cheese too. Especially sharp cheddar. In fact, this is proof to me that god does not exist. I mean, anything that hedonistic must have occurred naturally, because the god that everyone tells me exists doesn't seem to favor that sort of thing......
Thank you Paraglider.
BDazzler - far be it from me to encourage anyone to think! ;) Yes, the rhino/unicorn analogy is a good one. When travelling was for the favoured few, lots of misinformation about strange species was bandied about, complete with artists impressions.
Mark - I think you actually occupy two camps - traditional atheist (pre falsification theory) and modern rationalist (post falsification). The first camp is better understood and provides you more arguments, your bread and butter. Which brings us to cheese - mature cheddar is great. So is old gouda...
I'm surprised that nothing has been said in regard to quantum physics where science and mysticism converge in what frontier scientists call the Zero Point Field.
A few titles worth reading: "The Field" by Lynn McTaggart a journalist; "The Self Aware Universe" and "Physics of the Soul" by Amit Goswami, Ph.D. a theoretical physicist and professor at University of Oregon; "Science and the Akashic Field" by Ervin Laszlo, holder of four honorary Ph.D.s and founder of the General Evolution Research Group.
These guys have no difficulty in proving to their satisfaction, applying scientific methods and standards, that "a something" [my own statement in quotes] exists, which can be understood as the Zero Point Field or God, take your pick.
Vitaeb,
I think you are going over peoples heads with the Metaphysics stuff. Bringing all that into the picture with a few things like Folding Space and Time--now where can Jesus fit into that--ir even God? Then you also have the sting theory and The Lae of Attraction and a bunch of other science stuff.....they won't understand any of that if all they know how to do it fight over a soveriegn being...yad yada yada!!
Vitaeb & LG - Modern theoretical physics has gone far beyond the testable realm, for the time being, at least. And although science journalists and some of the scientists themselves write layman's books about it, the analogies they use are inevitably very remote from the extremely advanced mathematics in which these guys think. I studied Physics at university and even at undergraduate level you get to the point where you can mathematicaly describe and work with curvature of space or wave/particle duality, but you can't truly visualise either, except in equations. And these are as nothing compared with the current cutting edge. It's fascinating, but it's not about to influence public domain thinking.
My life has been far too perfect so far and don't know if its not for a "higher power" (like almighty and blessings from my elders) then I don't know what else to say.
The laws of karma and reincarnation I tend to believe in hence to a certain extent Iam a believer.
Regarding creation vs evolution I feel it could be a blend of both (I mean some "higher power" must have started it and then the momentum took care of evolving itself).
I find myself vacillating between being a believer and agnostic... What do you think?
CW - Belief is an option and can be a comforting one. Its down side is that the avenue of enquiry that led to the belief in the first place is then closed, because an answer has replaced the question. The same happens with active disbelief (atheism). One thing I have found is that withholding belief (the agnostic position) the sense of wonder is not diminished. If anything, it grows. For some, this is uncomfortable. Personally, I prefer this state. I'd say, question everything and remeber it's OK to change your mind!
Para, with your last statement, "It's fascinating, but it's not about to influence public domain thinking," has a definite negative ring to it. I look around and talk to a good many people who have already stepped into the new paradigm. From my perspective, not just intellectual history, but human history itself is in the process of turning a page, and these old dualistic arguments are falling away.
Vitaeb - I know you have a theory that the human species is in a process of irreversible bifurcation into two different species (or something along these lines) but so far I don't think you've set out your ideas here. Or if you have, I've missed it? I'm not trying to sound negative, but so far most people still haven't caught up with falsifiability yet in their general thinking, and that's a hundred years old, near enough. I support all genuine pursuit of knowledge, but I am not heartened by the plethora of mystical pseudo-sciences that spin off downstream of every genuine advance step.
Hi Para: My bifurcation 'theory' is more a fanciful idea that tickles my novelist instinct than something I put huge credence to. However, my 'theory' is based on a statement I heard from Brian Swimme, Ph.D. physicist and cosmologist, where he talks about the horse and the bison as having a common ancestor. This ancestor creature lived in forests that drastically receded exposing it to new predators. On an individual basis, some of the creatures responded to the danger by running away. These individuals ultimately became horses, while other individuals, those who dug in their heals and fought back, became the bison. So, having learned this, I began to speculate on the notion, and asked myself, how many other species evolved in this manner, and what about the human species...etc.
Now, those science authors I refered to a few postings ago do not dabble in pseudo-science. These are respectable, mainstream scientists who translate their 'mathematics' into a language for the layman. And since we all know that language - even the language of mathematics, despite its absolute quality - is metaphorical in its nature, and thus can only point to something that we sense might be 'reality,' we could easily argue that anything we believe to be real is simply that, namely, a belief. I belive one of the 5th century BCE Greek philosophers pointed this out. For a more modern statement, I like how Eckhart Tolle puts it: [I'm paraphrasing here] "Some stand before the road sign that points and reads "Philadelphia This Way" believing they are there."
Further, mysticism in its many forms, such as Buddhism or Kriya Yoga, is a well establish inner-state science, and not at all 'pseudo.' I find it quite fascinating that many scientists practice these mystical disciplines, finding them totally compatible with their other rigorous epistemological work.
There is some Sanity of the Mind on the internet too!... Great & deep Hub, this is what we need in times as these, now all too much people no longer can't think properly anymore (or so it seems).
Thanks, Lost Dutchman. I'm interested in clarifying concepts where I can, partly so I can refer people to hubs like this rather than endlessly repeating myself in the forums.
Some believe because they have been touch by God. Other believe because they do not wish to go to hell, or left out. Most Atheist's never felt the hand of God. The rest do not wish to waste time being good for the fear of it being a waste of time if God didn't exist. Agonostic refused to choose because of the FEAR of being wrong. Which is a cop-out.
Hi Paraglider:
What is god ? I believe in many 'gods'. God is something that dominates someone. Maybe it is money, power, wealth, desire or Allah. So I believe that my god is different from yours.
Rose Ella - some certaily believe that they have been touched by God. It's impossible to believe in hell without also believing in God. Rational Agnostics see no need for belief. Fear doesn't enter into that.
Bbudoyona - different from mine, certainly, as I don't have one. Broadening the definition of god to include any obsession doesn't really work for me.
Paraglider- It is hard to find the right word. touch is not it. knowing, but some not always knowing. Agnostic is a word with no meaning. Like there is yes and their is No. Maybe never complete's anything. Are you living now or are you still (maybe) dreaming.
Sorry Bbudoyona- there only one God to Planet Earth. Those who don.t have a God. Are their own Gods. The Devil didn't like having a God either. The greatest thing the devil has ever done, was to make millions belieive, he never existed.
Rose - Agnostic and Rationalist have meanings, as I have set out in this hub. Yes I am living now. No, I am not dreaming, except when asleep. It is a personal choice to believe in gods and devils, but that does not mean they exist. They might not. I suspect they don't.
Everyone has their own resaon to why they do or don't believe. there is no -time to suspect or say maybe. it is so simple. Yes or NO
There is time, Rose. There is no compulsion to take sides on an open question.
I like the clarity with which you explain the three camps. Yes the question is a very simplistic one, but,as many respondents have said, experience is vital. I believe in God('s existance), not so much because of logic, or "proof", but experience. If (high) intelect, rational tinking, tangible evidence were required, He would have provided it. The Bible says about Him, "if you seek me with your whole heart, you will find Me". It's a "heart" thing first, the rest follows after. Even science and logic (rational thought) requiers "steps" of progression. Get that wrong, and you have chaos.
So in short, God has chosen not to be found through physical, empirical evidence. Thus, making Himself "available" to 100% of humanity. Lets face it, the poor, hungry, uneducated etc, don't have the "luxury" of deep thought, and the like. They simply need to call on Him for help.
When Jesus commissined the disciples, He said go and preach/teach . . . so the hearers can " believe", and be saved. Miracles, healings etc were signs to "verify or authenticate" the message.
You do write well, I'll give you that. :)
aka-dj - thanks for commenting. This hub is all about distinguishing between three camps. You are in the Believer camp. You share that camp with Muslims, Hindus, Jews and many others. The difference between believers and non-believers is the phenomenon of belief. It has nothing at all to do with whether the belief is true or false. Clearly, mutually incompatible beliefs can't all be true!
hi Dave, I was reading all the responses and I was smiling, I dont want to join the confusion anymore, I am a believer before, but I am agnostic by your classification now.
It was a hard transition for me because of the socialization and culture where I grew up!
In the end, i have to stop pretending, (my parents will kill me, LOL)
have a good day always, Maita
Hi Maita - Yes, this one stirred up quite a lot of interest! I think to go through life with an open (but not vacant!) mind is very important. And I think you know that too :)
Thanks for this hub Paraglider. You've hit the nail on the head. As an Agnostic myself I find both parties with the "you gotta believe in something!" attitude very irritating. Yes, I do believe in something. I believe this so called higher being's existence cannot be proven, and given that hypothesis it's not worth all the arguments about it. I'm very happy with this point of view, and won't be changing it any time soon, regardless of what the herd may think.
Oops, sorry for the rant.
Thanks Hovalis. I can share your irritation at being told you have to believe. It's better to leave the open questions open, in the spirit of honest inquiry.
What an absolutely clear analysis and it is written for clear understanding from a man who has complete knowledge and has give his perception after studying, reading and listening. I enjoyed the comparison between the cheese and belief I will not ever look at cheese the same again. Great hub Paraglider! :)
Thanks AEvans. I wonder if God would like cheese, if he exists..
vitaeb says:
14 months ago
Very nice analysis...and I use the word 'nice' with its original intent. I believe there is another way of looking at this question. Those who are believers, believe through their faith, which is to say, through their subjective, inner knowing. The question of external evidence in regard to the existence of God or not, is irrelevant to those with a subjective viewpoint. However, people of faith do make the argument that nature, the cosmos itself proves the existence of God. Even science these days recognizes that the universe has not come into existence by chance. But to return to the subjective experience of God, those who have had a direct experience tend to express their believe in God, not so much as a supposition, but rather as a very real happening. The experience they report, the claim, is available to everyone who makes the attempt to 'go within.' These people, I would say, fall into none of the categories mentioned in this hub. These people can only be classified as 'mystics.' And the mystic claims a fourth position. For the mystic, it is not a question of whether God exists or not nor does the mystic believe in pantheism. For the mystic, there is only God, there is no me, no you, no universe, visible or invisible. There is only God.