Agnosticism, atheism, and "spiritual struggle"

[Mendalla]

Religion for Breakfast, the podcast/YouTube channel of religious studies scholar Andrew Henry, posted this story yesterday. It's about a recent study from the field of psychology of religion on non-religious people and the similarities and difference between "agnostic" and "atheist". There's some interesting findings and also some that strike me as kind of "well, duh" due to being kind of obvious. The goal was to look at the emotional and psychological elements of being one of these rather than the philosophical side, though they did ask why the respondents held their particular beliefs.

They also used a classification that I am not otherwise familiar with:

open atheist - doesn't believe in God but won't rule it out
closed atheist - positive that God does not exist (so, your classic atheist)
open agnostic - God's existence is unknown/unproven but could be provable
closed agnostic - God's existence is unknown/unprovable (again, the classic philosophical agnostic)

One thing Andrew acknowledges is that they don't really look at the interaction between the two. Many people identify as things like "agnostic atheist" (though that's kind of the open atheist) and "atheist agnostic" and such. And given the strict philosophical meaning of agnostic (metaphysics are inherently unprovable and a matter of subjective belief/faith rather than demonstrable fact), one can technically be an "agnostic theist", believing in God but also that you can't actually prove that God empirically or rationally. However, the goal of the study was look at how being atheist creates different emotional and spiritual character than being agnostic so they avoided this interaction.

As always with a study like this, there's some oversimplification and generalization and the host and researchers both acknowledge this weakness. There's also a general weakness that the study is mostly looking at white North American non-religious people with a Christian background or at least from a Christian culture, which comes with a certain amount of cultural baggage (e.g. many of them are people who left or outright rejected Christianity). I suspect that looking at atheists and agnostics from the Islamic world or Jewish world might generate some different findings given the different starting point for spirituality in those cultures. Like many studies of this nature, it's a starting point rather than the be-all and end-all.

Anyhow, thought it something that people here might enjoy hearing what this study had to say. I'm not endorsing the results, not really is the host, just presenting them for your perusal. As an agnostic myself (not sure yet if I am "open" or "closed"), I have questions and issues with it but the general thrust of the findings actually makes some sense.

 

[Delightful Life]

awesome

more words to describe things, rally around, write whole books on

i remember those heady days of my yoot lol

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Religion for Breakfast, the podcast/YouTube channel of religious studies scholar Andrew Henry, posted this story yesterday. It's about a recent study from the field of psychology of religion on non-religious people and the similarities and difference between "agnostic" and "atheist". There's some interesting findings and also some that strike me as kind of "well, duh" due to being kind of obvious. The goal was to look at the emotional and psychological elements of being one of these rather than the philosophical side, though they did ask why the respondents held their particular beliefs.

They also used a classification that I am not otherwise familiar with:

open atheist - doesn't believe in God but won't rule it out
closed atheist - positive that God does not exist (so, your classic atheist)
open agnostic - God's existence is unknown/unproven but could be provable
closed agnostic - God's existence is unknown/unprovable (again, the classic philosophical agnostic)

One thing Andrew acknowledges is that they don't really look at the interaction between the two. Many people identify as things like "agnostic atheist" (though that's kind of the open atheist) and "atheist agnostic" and such. And given the strict philosophical meaning of agnostic (metaphysics are inherently unprovable and a matter of subjective belief/faith rather than demonstrable fact), one can technically be an "agnostic theist", believing in God but also that you can't actually prove that God empirically or rationally. However, the goal of the study was look at how being atheist creates different emotional and spiritual character than being agnostic so they avoided this interaction.

As always with a study like this, there's some oversimplification and generalization and the host and researchers both acknowledge this weakness. There's also a general weakness that the study is mostly looking at white North American non-religious people with a Christian background or at least from a Christian culture, which comes with a certain amount of cultural baggage (e.g. many of them are people who left or outright rejected Christianity). I suspect that looking at atheists and agnostics from the Islamic world or Jewish world might generate some different findings given the different starting point for spirituality in those cultures. Like many studies of this nature, it's a starting point rather than the be-all and end-all.

Anyhow, thought it something that people here might enjoy hearing what this study had to say. I'm not endorsing the results, not really is the host, just presenting them for your perusal. As an agnostic myself (not sure yet if I am "open" or "closed"), I have questions and issues with it but the general thrust of the findings actually makes some sense.

Did they ask anyone who believes there’s a God but has a few contentious issues and questions about what God’s allowing to happen in the world? How many who believe in God, will say, “Yeah but, God, is that really necessary? If you can do anything, and you put us here, why allow life to be so hard for people?” Then, personally I go on to doubt God but still feel like there’s no way we could exist and be conscious and questioning beings without a force responsible for that, that could be called God - then I come back to belief. It makes less sense to believe there’s no such thing. We didn’t create ourselves and our consciousness has a reason that is not well understood but can attributed to existence itself, and ancients called it God. Does that make me an agnostic theist?

 

[Mendalla]

Does that make me an agnostic theist?

That's probably as good a label as any for that belief. Do you believe that this God intervenes in the world or is just an underlying creative force who made it and then let it go? Then you'd be a deist (like Thomas Jefferson, to give one of the most famous examples).

For me, agnostic theist (I was there at one time) was more "I believe there is a God but the nature and details are open to inquiry". That was in the period where I was still Christian but rejecting a lot of traditional theology (e.g. the Trinity) and exploring some non-traditional theologies (my first encounter with process was in that era) and theologies from other cultures (e.g. Hinduism, esp. the Gita, was influential).

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

That's probably as good a label as any for that belief. Do you believe that this God intervenes in the world or is just an underlying creative force who made it and then let it go? Then you'd be a deist (like Thomas Jefferson, to give one of the most famous examples).

For me, agnostic theist (I was there at one time) was more "I believe there is a God but the nature and details are open to inquiry". That was in the period where I was still Christian but rejecting a lot of traditional theology (e.g. the Trinity) and exploring some non-traditional theologies (my first encounter with process was in that era) and theologies from other cultures (e.g. Hinduism, esp. the Gita, was influential).

I believe God is a life force responsible for existence that intervenes through humanity - whether we’re conscious of it or not - not a man in the sky. If it’s not loving and merciful, it’s a not a god worth having faith in.

 

[Mendalla]

I believe God is a life force responsible for existence that intervenes through humanity not a man in the sky. If it’s not loving and merciful, it’s a not a god worth having faith in.

So closer to panentheism then (an all-encompassing deity who is present in the world and tries to steer it to their will rather than a remote one who pops by from time to time to clean up the mess). So you could easily hold that and still be agnostic in that you hold your belief in that deity is faith and not proven or provable by reason or empirical methods. I flirt with that version of God myself.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I believe Jesus had the right idea and a loving god wouldn’t require a repeat performance. That’s people steering the wrong way.

 

[chansen]

Though some won't believe me, I vacillate between open and closed atheist, to use these terms. I'm not completely closed, just closed to the ones put forward so far because they are all so wildly unbelievable.

We need better explanations and preferably some evidence. What the major religions propose or insist simply fails to impress me on any level. Don't get me wrong, the threats are great. But I can not believe. It's simply not possible for me to believe any of these stories without the benefit of a brain injury.

 

[Luce NDs]

Though some won't believe me, I vacillate between open and closed atheist, to use these terms. I'm not completely closed, just closed to the ones put forward so far because they are all so wildly unbelievable.

We need better explanations and preferably some evidence. What the major religions propose or insist simply fails to impress me on any level. Don't get me wrong, the threats are great. But I can not believe. It's simply not possible for me to believe any of these stories without the benefit of a brain injury.

Unbelievable doth raise some qualms ... and people will fight that! No question about it ...

 

[timothyu]

If you can do anything, and you put us here, why allow life to be so hard for people?”

We brought it on ourselves and need to learn the consequences of our selfishness. A person doesn't learn by being pampered. We broke it, we need to fix it.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

A person doesn’t learn through fear, abuse, and abandonment either. They just become damaged. A god who would do that isn’t worth believing in. We do that to ourselves while he threatens some more? We would be in the same position god or no god if a “bootstrap” god was the answer. Especially if that god has the ability to do anything but chooses to put his children through an entire human history of pain and watch people struggle and die in that pain, everywhere. That only means that god broke us all along. If following Jesus’ ways is the solution it’s not necessary to believe in a punitive god. However, given the mass numbers of people who don’t believe that following loving ways is the answer, the world has become quite harsh, falling to a punitive god again.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Hurt people, hurt people. That’s what a punitive “god” teaches through harshness and hard knocks and then people do it to each other. Not worth having faith in that. That’s the way it is not the way it needs to be. We don’t need a god if everybody could pull ourselves up by the bootstraps. If we all could wouldn’t the world look different by now? And what use is god if that’s our own expectation? We need a kinder version and Jesus’ could be that but people choose to not to have faith that a more loving population can build a better world. And that’s why after thousands of years, bootstraps got us here.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It’s not just greed that’s the problem. It’s callousness and punitiveness and utilitarianism.

 

[unsafe]

We brought it on ourselves and need to learn the consequences of our selfishness. A person doesn't learn by being pampered. We broke it, we need to fix it.

We can't fix what we did to ourselves or this earth ------God is going to fix it by bringing 7 years of tribulation on unbelievers to give them a last chance to repent and come to the realization that they need a Saviour ------

Many like to blame God for everything bad in this world -----and expect God to use His magic to make it all go away ----when God gave Humans dominion over looking after this earth -----
they get off on playing the Blame Game cause they can't face blaming themselves and humanity for their defiled corrupt selves and their wicked ways -----who have caused all the wars and killings and destruction of this world -----

And People who mock God and Say they don't want God and don't give Him the time of day expect God to be there at their beck and call to come and fix their problems and the problems of this world ---Blows my Mind

They haven't got a Spiritual clue -------and are so arrogant and ignorant of it all ------

We can't fix ourselves nor this world Folks !!!!!!!!!

 

[chansen]

We can't fix what we did to ourselves or this earth ------God is going to fix it by bringing 7 years of tribulation on unbelievers to give them a last chance to repent and come to the realization that they need a Saviour ------

Seven. Seven years of "tribulation".

That's oddly specific. So if you don't believe, the thing you don't believe in is going to sentence you to 7 years of "tribulation".

So we get evidence after the fact? Not before?

Many like to blame God for everything bad in this world -----and expect God to use His magic to make it all go away ----when God gave Humans dominion over looking after this earth -----
they get off on playing the Blame Game cause they can't face blaming themselves and humanity for their defiled corrupt selves and their wicked ways -----who have caused all the wars and killings and destruction of this world -----

No. We don't blame God. That would be ridiculous.

We blame God's fan club. Those people are idiots.

And People who mock God and Say they don't want God and don't give Him the time of day expect God to be there at their beck and call to come and fix their problems and the problems of this world ---Blows my Mind

No. We don't expect anything from God. Why do you presume to tell unbelievers what we expect?

You haven't got a leg to stand on, so you go around creating strawmen. Anything you say about "unbelievers" is simply what you want us to be like. You don't listen to the positions of atheists at all.

They haven't got a Spiritual clue -------and are so arrogant and ignorant of it all ------

We don't have the answers to big questions that you claim to have, on the back of an old book. We don't claim to know the mind of some all-powerful deity. You speak of arrogance? Of ignorance?

Please.

 

[Delightful Life]

We broke it, we need to fix it.
w

We human beings are amazingly powerful:
1. The Tower of Babel. God acknowledged that nothing is beyond us, that we can become as God/the Gods
2. The creation of Original Sin, we limited, ignorant, small beings CHANGED ALL OF CREATION, GODS PERFECT WORK. Still amazed by that
3. With the mere act of sex, we force God to put a soul in a human being

Man we are awesome :3

 

[Delightful Life]

 

[Delightful Life]

Though some won't believe me, I vacillate between open and closed atheist, to use these terms. I'm not completely closed, just closed to the ones put forward so far because they are all so wildly unbelievable.

We need better explanations and preferably some evidence. What the major religions propose or insist simply fails to impress me on any level. Don't get me wrong, the threats are great. But I can not believe. It's simply not possible for me to believe any of these stories without the benefit of a brain injury.

oh those heady days of your youth when you were surfing with the likes of antitheism and atheism, Dawkins and Hitchens

Heck even the likes of Panentheism and Revjohn weren't able to convert you :3