At the beginning of this young community, I thought it might be helpful to make a clear distinction between the definitions as they differ greatly in their explainability. Contrary to some opinions that can be heared, the statements a) there are one/more divine beings and b) no divine beings exist are logically equivalent.
99.99% Gnostic Atheist here. So it would be kind of disingenuous to call myself Agnostic because of that tiny remaining 0.01%.
Regarding the Judaic God, I’m 100% Gnostic, as I believe that thousands of years of lack of evidence, and the many flaws of Judaic religions, are actual proof that they are false religions.
Nice to have you here :) This place is open for anyone and I’m really happy to have conversations with poeple with different views. I would wonder how you define the divine power you refer to when you say you are an atheist.
Thank you for the welcome. ;)
I do not define gods or deities. Different religions do.
Some Christians define their God as for instance Omnipotent and Omniscient. Those two qualities are impossible. The first is easy, can God create a stone so heavy he can’t lift it? The second is a bit harder to explain, but containing all knowledge, would create an infinite recursive demand, for something to contain the knowledge.
Also clearly the earth was not created in the way the Bible describes, and the Bible even contradicts itself in Gensis already on page 2.
All I can say is, that I have yet to see a definition of a God that has any evidence to support it.
Without evidence there is no reason to believe something. Especially not when there are alternative explanations, that actually have evidence.
I see. I only asked because you have to have some idea when you oppose something. From your answer I conclude that this is everything that is not clearly proven by science. Do I see that correctly?
Sorry for this double response.
But this might have been a better response than the previous one.
There is good rule IMO, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
You are correct that I value scientific evidence very high. I also value strong logic highly.
So we can have philosophical truths, that aren’t exactly scientific. But are arrived at through rigorous use of logic. There is no rigorous logic supported by evidence AFAIK that supports any religion.
Here we have to be careful what we call divine or even a divine being. Many religions have the image of the personified god(s), but I am more inclined towards more open interpretations like panentheism. I am also convinced that faith or the philosophy of faith can be against the rules of science. Rather, I believe that they complement each other wonderfully. I see myself more as an admirer of a whole that is more than its individual parts. For me, divine power can be described as the emergence of the totality of all real things. I am therefore of the opinion that “God” is in everything and even more.
As an agnostic theist, I admit that this belief cannot really be proven and probably never will be. For me, however, this is not so much a contradiction as a confirmation, since I perceive the divine as something superior to our imagination. Like infinity, which we can name and reckon with but never really understand.
Whether I say that quantum decay really exists or that it is an illusion is, in my opinion, similar to the question of the divine. Can we prove that it really exists? Can you prove that it is impossible?
I also tend towards realism and think that there is a reality independent of our consciousness, our knowledge and our evidence. A reality that we discover with science and do not create.
I suppose for you that belief creates some sort of pattern that makes sense to you. But I’d argue you can make that without needing a god.
If the god intersects everything, it’s kind of strange we can’t detect god in any way even indirectly.
divine power can be described as the emergence of the totality of all real things.
That sounds a bit like the way Asimov described Gaia in Foundation and Earth. I read that in the late 80’s, so not a new concept to me. I found it intriguing at the time, because I was a lot more “spiritual” back then. Since I have investigated many such questions thoroughly, and always end up empty.
I wanted to believe there was “something more”, but my conclusion is that there probably is not.
I also tend towards realism and think that there is a reality independent of our consciousness
Good. Keep your feet somewhat on the ground. ;)
We do. You just interpret and name it differently just like science does when it cant explain something. I am extremely intrigued by the quantum information interpretation. This site I linked is a true treasure trove. My whole way of thinking and my view of the world was strongly influenced by this interpretation.
I do not oppose it, I reject it.
I do not have ideas about Gods either, religious people do.
And no I do not need science to believe in gravity, but I don’t believe stones have a desire to seek towards the ground, as the ancient Greeks did.
I just don’t think there is any reason to believe old superstitions that are self evidently riddled with factual mistakes, and don’t explain anything.
My belief is not a claim but rather an interpretation of the sciences and their findings. Just like the quantum interpretations. As you said too you don’t THINK that there is any reason for the existence of any deity but can you really be sure? Isn’t that just another valid interpretation?
We can’t prove some kind of god doesn’t exist, because you can’t prove a negative. But we can be sure that it was not a god that created the earth the way it is described in the Bible.
We can definitely both agree on that ;) Fun fact: Even the catholic church rejects the idea of strong creationism: catechism of the catholic church
I’m not really a fan of the binary agnostic or gnostic distinctions of atheism. What does it mean to “know”, exactly? To be absolutely, 100% convinced beyond the shadow of any doubt, or to conclude that there isn’t any evidence of God? There’s quite a bit of room for disagreement over how we might use the term.
I think something like the Dawkins scale is much better, as it shows a gradation of conviction. I think most atheists would probably fall on 5 or 6 on the scale rather than 7/7.
I’m really sorry that the graphic I chose seems to be misleading. Basically, it should represent a matrix (similar to a political spectrum) which contrasts the conviction with its strength. Your scale would correspond to an inverted parabola. I like the descriptions of this list very much. Maybe tomorrow I will find a better graphic ;)
Asterisk by the gnostic atheist?
Should also be at the gnostic theist. Explanation is in black at the bottom of the picture.
