Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Agnostic Pantheism


Jessie

Recommended Posts

I watch a show every week on the internet that discusses theism and atheism. This last Sunday, a rather odd man called into the show, claiming to be a agnostic pantheist. He couldn't seem to keep his story straight and also seemed to have some pretty outlandish beliefs. It seemed more like he was a troll than anything else. In any case, the minute he said he was an agnostic pantheist, the chat room was filled with mocking statements about the absurdity of that. "I'm an agnostic atheist deist pantheist." among other strange combinations of terms, giving me the impression that people believe agnosticism and pantheism don't work together.

 

But I don't get it. Why not? Is it so absurd to think "I don't know and probably can't know if there is a god, but I believe in one, and I believe if he does exist, he probably has these traits." Do the terms really not fit together? What am I not understanding about agnosticism and pantheism not being compatible? Or were those people just being ignorant?

 

Thanks and sorry for the stupid question if it is one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



I watch a show every week on the internet that discusses theism and atheism. This last Sunday, a rather odd man called into the show, claiming to be a agnostic pantheist. He couldn't seem to keep his story straight and also seemed to have some pretty outlandish beliefs. It seemed more like he was a troll than anything else. In any case, the minute he said he was an agnostic pantheist, the chat room was filled with mocking statements about the absurdity of that. "I'm an agnostic atheist deist pantheist." among other strange combinations of terms, giving me the impression that people believe agnosticism and pantheism don't work together.

 

But I don't get it. Why not? Is it so absurd to think "I don't know and probably can't know if there is a god, but I believe in one, and I believe if he does exist, he probably has these traits." Do the terms really not fit together? What am I not understanding about agnosticism and pantheism not being compatible? Or were those people just being ignorant?

 

Thanks and sorry for the stupid question if it is one.

 

I thought that the agnostic's denial of knowledge prompts him/her to suspend or refuse belief in a deity. Even theists could say "I don't know and probably can't know if there is a god," if those theists are taking "know" in a strong but conventional sense, excluding occult or mystical knowledge. It seems contradictory for someone to deny knowing god but claim to believe in god and then claim to be agnostic, because I think agnostic is used in practice to refer to people who do not believe, although literally it only refers to those who do not claim to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose "agnostic pantheist" is as good a shorthand as any for... "I don't really know, but if so then in nature". I mean, perhaps there is always going to be some internal tension created by putting "agnostic" before something else. If we imagine calling ourselves "agnostic theists" then what have we accomplished?

 

Thanks and sorry for the stupid question if it is one.

Ah Jessie! This is the Spirituality forum. We fudge things here. Because reality is fudged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose "agnostic pantheist" is as good a shorthand as any for... "I don't really know, but if so then in nature".

 

Basically this. I don't know what he said on the show that was so outlandish, so he could just be weird, but, eh, it could work.

 

Not something I would call myself, but whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on the belief system in question. For instance, some belief systems are cool with you not agreeing with everything. That's why I like the pagan (celtic traditions) outlook- I don't have to believe in any gods or do any rituals to call myself a pagan. I just appreciate their view of the world, and I find it compatible with atheism. That being said, though, I veer more towards atheism.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a term in programming, "language agnostic", which means "something that is independent of programming language." For instance, Knuth's books are considered such. Same for books about patterns. UML is considered language agnostic as well, even though "L" stands for "language."

 

http://www.amazon.co...m/RM2PTDDSWPCO4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I don't get it. Why not? Is it so absurd to think "I don't know and probably can't know if there is a god, but I believe in one, and I believe if he does exist, he probably has these traits." Do the terms really not fit together? What am I not understanding about agnosticism and pantheism not being compatible? Or were those people just being ignorant?

I think the responses you described on the show demonstrate immaturity, or arrogant ignorance if you wish. What I hear him trying to describe is along the lines of what Legion said. It's more like him as part of a Christian culture is trying to find an affirmative statement of belief saying, "I'm not sure if God exists or not, but if so I lean towards a pantheist view". It is a little confusing because a pantheist is an actual affirming belief that God is nature. There is no 'perhaps so, maybe not', to it. He rather would be better to say he's an agnostic with leanings towards pantheism.

 

It seems kind of like how I used to identify as a 'spiritual atheist' until I dropped the disclaimer 'atheist' as it was no longer relevant to how I viewed God. God was no longer the traditional theist view. We struggle in the West to find labels to tell ourselves how we believe in order to talk about it. But at some point, it all becomes paradoxical. You could say I am a theist-non-theist, and actually be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We struggle in the West to find labels to tell ourselves how we believe in order to talk about it. But at some point, it all becomes paradoxical. You could say I am a theist-non-theist, and actually be right.

 

I see labels as a point of further explanation, or an explanation, full stop. I'm very open about having bipolar because it makes my life easier. I have no qualms with the label, because when I'm having a bad day, people know it's just the bipolar talking and I'm not being a bitch on purpose. Labels can also be good to stop further discussion when you don't want it. I've been called a satanist because I wear a pentagram by xtians. Sometimes I can't be fucked explaining shit and just turn around and say, "yeah, know where I can find some cheap chickens to sacrifice?"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But at some point, it all becomes paradoxical. You could say I am a theist-non-theist, and actually be right.

 

I 'grok' this because I'm somewhat at the same place. I see that life itself is likely founded on paradox, and I think there is a good reason why mystics often speak in riddles. However, if communicable rigor is to be maintained then I think an effort to distinguish between self-negating contradiction and 'sensible' paradox is required.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But at some point, it all becomes paradoxical. You could say I am a theist-non-theist, and actually be right.

 

I 'grok' this because I'm somewhat at the same place. I see that life itself is likely founded on paradox, and I think there is a good reason why mystics often speak in riddles. However, if communicable rigor is to be maintained then I think an effort to distinguish between self-negating contradiction and 'sensible' paradox is required.

To someone who has seen the paradox then the contradiction is no contradiction. smile.png True? Hence why you 'grok' this? The difficulty is that to make it definable is to not define it at all. Opposites must exist in order to be reasoned, and since pairs of opposites are one and the same, it defies reason and is only understood in direct, experiential apprehension. To talk about it is how I call it 'highly symbolic', far beyond the way we symbolically understand so-called reality with the rational mind. I deeply believe in the God that doesn't exist. God beyond God. God's God. Yet this is fully true despite the logical contradiction. It it a transrational reality. Grok? smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mainly take from that is that you do not believe the paradoxical nature of life can be explicitly understood. If so, I disagree. I think we can represent some of the relations of life within language and without contradiction and they may be paradoxical (e.g. chicken and egg, self-fulfilling prophecy). I think there are relations which are basically rationally irrational. I also think humanity would accrue survival advantage if we can establish these representations in internally consistent and rich languages. We can communicate these to those who will live after us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply mean that life is existentially understood, and that defies explicit definitions. Can we create such languages as do communicate these paradoxes? Only if not understood explicitly. :) Poetry. The gods. Song. Dance. Worship. Love. Devotion. And beyond: Light, Peace, God. Language ultimately dissolves into non-language - Being Itself. Life Itself. Not understood with the mind, but Spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. woohoo.gif There is that too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. woohoo.gif There is that too!

I grok that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply mean that life is existentially understood, and that defies explicit definitions. Can we create such languages as do communicate these paradoxes? Only if not understood explicitly. smile.png Poetry. The gods. Song. Dance. Worship. Love. Devotion. And beyond: Light, Peace, God. Language ultimately dissolves into non-language - Being Itself. Life Itself. Not understood with the mind, but Spirit.

 

THIS. This is why my religion is best expressed in ritual, and discussion always falls short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Speak a new language

so that the world

will be a new world."

 

~Rumi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Speak a new language

so that the world

will be a new world."

 

~Rumi

 

:wub: Ahhh, Rumi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't agnostic pantheism be akin to not knowing if there is a god or not being able to know but just revering nature in the process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we create such languages as do communicate these paradoxes? Only if not understood explicitly.

 

A-man, I am going to return to this because it really bothers me. Yes, we can create languages which communicate these paradoxes and we have done so. Higher order logic, non-well-founded sets, and category theory come to mind for instance. You are wrong here. Flat out mistaken.

 

Wouldn't agnostic pantheism be akin to not knowing if there is a god or not being able to know but just revering nature in the process?

 

That is certainly suggested to me Zephie. And as you put like this, I am thinking that 'agnostic pantheism' is an idea with some measure of nobility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wouldn't agnostic pantheism be akin to not knowing if there is a god or not being able to know but just revering nature in the process?

 

That is certainly suggested to me Zephie. And as you put like this, I am thinking that 'agnostic pantheism' is an idea with some measure of nobility.

 

I guess my thinking is just trying to understand where this person was coming from. I'm still in the process of honing my critical thinking skills. I could see how someone would not be able to know there was a god but revere nature just the same. Perhaps we as humans get hung up on labels? I know I do at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't agnostic pantheism be akin to not knowing if there is a god or not being able to know but just revering nature in the process?

 

That is certainly suggested to me Zephie. And as you put like this, I am thinking that 'agnostic pantheism' is an idea with some measure of nobility.

 

I guess my thinking is just trying to understand where this person was coming from. I'm still in the process of honing my critical thinking skills. I could see how someone would not be able to know there was a god but revere nature just the same. Perhaps we as humans get hung up on labels? I know I do at times.

 

Yeah, the term itself is difficult I think. But this need not prevent us from examining what is suggested by the term. I tried this too...

 

Agnostic pantheism - God is either unknowable or unknown, but if God does exist then God pervades nature.

 

:shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Doesn't the term agnostic pantheism seem a little self refuting and maybe a bit pretentious? If your a agnostic pantheist, to me, your just a agnostic that loves nature. Why not just then say your a agnostic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't agnostic pantheism be akin to not knowing if there is a god or not being able to know but just revering nature in the process?

 

That is certainly suggested to me Zephie. And as you put like this, I am thinking that 'agnostic pantheism' is an idea with some measure of nobility.

 

I guess my thinking is just trying to understand where this person was coming from. I'm still in the process of honing my critical thinking skills. I could see how someone would not be able to know there was a god but revere nature just the same. Perhaps we as humans get hung up on labels? I know I do at times.

 

Yeah, the term itself is difficult I think. But this need not prevent us from examining what is suggested by the term. I tried this too...

 

Agnostic pantheism - God is either unknowable or unknown, but if God does exist then God pervades nature.

 

Wendyshrug.gif

 

That seems like a good explanation of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't the term agnostic pantheism seem a little self refuting and maybe a bit pretentious? If your a agnostic pantheist, to me, your just a agnostic that loves nature. Why not just then say your a agnostic?

 

Because.... you want to say just a little bit more? :HaHa::shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.