Technically, every man woman and child is agnostic, there are no theists or atheists. We can believe we know, but in the true sense of what it is to know something, the existence of God is not like that. I can say there is a cup on the table and I can say I there is a God but the existence of the cup is 'knowable' (with caveats for my ability to interpret my senses). I think this was one of Mark Vernon's points.

Justin, High Wycombe http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6199716.stm

Knowledge--of the kind that is always open to question--makes some people wise, humble and full of awe. Knowledge--of the kind based on fixed-position thinking and demanding unquestioning acceptance--makes others power-hungry and arrogant.
Take your pick.

BTW, I did not have to become an agnostic; I feel I was born one. I like to think of myself as a humble and curious agnostic. As such, I have the feeling that through the door of this kind of agnosticism, and with the help of other agnostics, is the way to a bright, beautiful and knowledge-filled future.

I would think it is somewhere in the middle actually..... more a fusion of the two.

I wrote the following comment to the article from the BBC that you posted:
=======================================================
TWO KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE
It seems to me that there are at least two kinds of knowledge (that is, approaches to the sciences in general):

First, there is the kind which is based on the fixed-position thinking of certain "experts". In their struggle to gain power and/or wealth, advocates of this kind of arrogant expertism demand unquestioning acceptance of what they say or write. Such seek to achieve this position by attacting slave-like followers, sheeple, who will be, primarily, in awe of them.

Second, there is the humble kind of expert. This kind is never afraid of questions and is open to research. It seems to me that the truly wise experts are those who seek to share their knowledge. They share it, not to impress, but to inspire all of us to become explorers with them. As we explore this mysterious universe, together, I believe we will be amazed what we can, and will, do. As we develop a deep sense of awe, in coopertation with a rational faith, I believe that the possibilites out there are endless--Perhaps this is the only certainty.

THREE KINDS OF AGNOSTICISM
Also, it seems to me there are at least three kinds of agnosticism:

First, there is apathetic agnosticism. The apathetic agnostic is one who says, "I don't know, don't want to know, and I don't care!"

Second, there is also the cynical agnostic who says, "Life sucks!!!" In his novel, Farewell To Arms, Hemmingway puts the following words in the mouth of one of his characters: "Life is a dirty trick". Ironically, the handsome Rock Hudson, who died of AIDS, played the role in the movie.

Third, there is the curious and humble kind of agnostic. I presume that the former Anglican minister, Mark Vernon, is one of this kind--one who finds joy in uncertainty. As he writes in the article, "In fact, I have become really quite evangelical about the need for a passionate, committed agnosticism."

He tells us that following a period of being and atheist, he became an agnostic.

As for me, I did not have to become an agnostic; I feel I was born one, in 1930.

Currently, I like to think of myself as a humble and curious agnostic. As such, I have the feeling that it is through the door of this kind of agnosticism, and with the help of humble experts and agnostics, like Mark Vernon, that we can find the way to a bright, beautiful and knowledge-filled and joyfully uncertain future.

For me, faith is not a blind leap in the dark; but rather, it is a slow and careful walk in the light (with the help of knowledge, philosophy, science, art) that I have.

On the other hand, perhaps an agnostic is just an atheist without the courage of his convictions.

Amusing , Rick.

On the other other hand, perhaps the agnostic is an epitheist/unitheist who hasn't yet discovered that it is okay to define god as ALL that IS, without having to understand it all. I can accept the fact that I live on this planet earth without having to know all about it. Why would anyone doubt the ALL that IS--G�D--just because we lack full knowledge and understanding?

Sure, it is okay to question the nature and function of G�D--ALL that IS. With the help of science, I do it all the time. But can anyone really say that there is no such a thing as ALL that IS? Is ALL that IS, including atheists , just an illusion?

BTW, sincere atheists, If I say that I believe in G�D, do I not have the right to define what I mean by G�D? Or do I have to adhere to your definition? What is your definition?

Now, if I define G�D and existence--that is, physical, mental and spiritual existence--as one and the same, I am all ears to hear how atheists deal with this.

Bit of a non-statement. I think that everyone accepts that.
We have to deal with this in our own way. There are those who don't want to know about it and there are those who want to know everything, and all in-between. Personally and honestly, I want to know everything and I have difficulty in accepting my meagre abilities that limit my understanding.

Of course time will unfold more knowledge and the concerted efforts of humans will help to elucidate that which individuals cannot. In the meantime I, like many, attempt to understand the evidence for processes and (largely in the past in my case) try to conceive of new explanations for phenomena. I have to admit that I find it hard to deal with the time-wasting shinanigins of most religions, although I do enjoy the games and mind experiments of philosophical theologians. But, as with most games, I turn off the machine when I've had enough. Then the real fun begins - living the futility of a real individual human life!

Hey Hey every now and again, in amongst the banter
and the pissing contests, somebody writes something thought-provoking,
clearly formulated, challenging and containing great enlightenment.

I need to mull over it for a while before I can respond to it
specifically, but thanks for posting it.

the cup on a table is an object, a mental representation. God, defined as that which contains all objects and mental representations, is not. To the extent that our consciousness is not solely comprised of objects or mental representations, but that we have direct access to something greater, thus do we know God directly.

You can still deny that God exists, or not recognize God as such because It is omnipresent, like the story of the fish oblivious to water because it is everywhere.

To label such a view as pantheism or panpsychism does not do it justice since it is the experience, the consciousness, that counts, and not the words we use to denote them and which are oft distorted, conflated, confused or otherwise misinterpreted.

So I guess you could say that, technically, everyone is God-intoxicated, whether they know it or not.

Even those who proclaim to believe in "God" will often form no clear conception and have no direct knowledge of what they believe in but rather choose to go by "faith", which is oblivious to reason, and thus the preferred path of the bumpkin and the ignorant.

God is an ocean. We are stuck on the surface most of the time, and many see little sparkles of light on the surface and proclaim that to be God and that they are true believers, but all they believe in is an illusion, a lie unworthy of That which contains all. The ocean is big enough to contain all the religions and falsehoods of the world, and these are but an infinitesimal speck compared to the vastness of the truth.

Well said.

The whole thing is faith without the evidence.

[quote name='lucid_dream' post='73042' date='Dec 07, 2006, 05:40 AM']
Even those who proclaim to believe in "God" will often form no clear conception and have no direct knowledge of what they believe in but rather choose to go by "faith", which is oblivious to reason, and thus the preferred path of the bumpkin and the ignorant.
[/quote]


[quote name='Hey Hey' date='Dec 07, 2006, 01:49 AM' post='73056']
[/quote]
The whole thing is faith without the evidence.
[/quote]

But thats what faith is.

[quote name='Culture' date='Dec 07, 2006, 10:16 AM' post='73059']
[quote name='lucid_dream' post='73042' date='Dec 07, 2006, 05:40 AM']
Even those who proclaim to believe in "God" will often form no clear conception and have no direct knowledge of what they believe in but rather choose to go by "faith", which is oblivious to reason, and thus the preferred path of the bumpkin and the ignorant.
[/quote]


[quote name='Hey Hey' date='Dec 07, 2006, 01:49 AM' post='73056']
[/quote]
The whole thing is faith without the evidence.
[/quote]

But thats what faith is.
[/quote]
Sorry, I just got up. Of course it is!

A bit off topic, I wonder if anyone has declared which God of which Religion created another God of another religion.

In other words, which was the first God, and in what sequence were they created by which God?

It appears you are saying that G�D is all that exists, or

G�D = existence

where the equal sign means "is identical to."

Then your statement seems to be the same as Spinoza's argument for pantheism.

As to the atheist "dealing" with physical, mental, and spiritual existence, if we assume there is no need for a god (or G�D) concept, then your equation becomes meaningless and unnecessary. It's much simpler that way. Notice that your equation, above, is giving two names to the same thing.

Rick, you quote me, "G�D = existence." I will add: G�D is TOTAL (physical, mental and spiritual) existence.
If this is what Spinoza meant, I agree with Spinoza, for now. I always reserve the right to change my mind.

Rick, at this point, I understand that you are NOT an atheist, right?
If not, what then are you?

In addition, please clarify what do you do mean by

BTW, is there any law against "giving two names to the same thing"?

On my self-labeling: I don't think there is anything that is supernatural, so I guess that would make me a "naturalist." Being that human beings are the most important natural objects, maybe I am a "humanist."

On clarifying my earlier statement: the atheist deals with your equivalence statement by ignoring the tautology as uninformative.

On the necessity for a law against confusing names: the English language is all the richer for our multiple ways of saying things, but when a new word that resembles the spelling of "God", a very heavily loaded word, is unnecessarily entered into a philosophical discussion, that becomes annoying because it can only confuse an already-complex issue.

If you need shorthand notation, maybe you could use "ATE" for "all that exists." That would be less objectionable because it would avoid the potential conflation with the theistic object (God).

Why exactly would humans be the most important natural object? Why not say...oh I don't know the sun. Without the sun there would be no humans. Saying that humans are the most important natural object is pretty egocentric. That to me is like Christians saying that man is more important than any other animal because God loves man the most...

Given that a world with humans requires the Sun, I would prefer a world with both than a world with only the Sun. Wouldn't you?

And while all the animals (and all of life) are very important, I would rather be a human, than say, a cat. Maybe others feel differently, but I have my preferences.

Finally, there is a practical reason for preferring humans. Life on Earth will end for certain by the year 500 million (aging of the Sun). The only species that I would currently consider to have a chance to find a technological solution for preserving life forever is the humans. Therefore, go humans!

Now while I have to agree that humans rock and are the potential for preserving life, I also have to say that human totaly suck and are the potential for destroying life. Just look at atomic weapons.

Given that amount of time and given our sentimentality for conservation, other organisms could possibly have evolved to sentience and technology by then. Thus there could be other potential non-human organisms that might survive. As a point on its own, how might we deal with the evolution of other organisms? Co-existence, extermination, send them to Mars .....? Would we be God by then and pass our days by observing them in their formicary? Hey, hang on, reminds me of something similar that some people believe presently.

"Let me offer the universe to people. We are in the universe and the universe is in us. I don't know any deeper spiritual feeling that those thoughts." - Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, Hayden Planetarium, New York

Any good?

An agnostic was once defined: An Athiest searching for God...
i tend to agree with that.
Whether you are a christian, agnostic or athiest....you DO believe in something.... God is there regardless of what you believe...you can't wish or deny Him away... He is here.