Agnostic.com

40 6

Gnostic Atheist, Agnostic Atheist, Agnostic Theist, or Gnostic Theist?

Was Carl Sagan an atheist? Where are you on this spectrum?

At times I identify with Sagan's admiration for William James’ definition of religion; which I think suggests he was more of an agnostic looking for that, “feeling of being at home in the Universe”.

Looking at the spectrum of Gnostic Theists; Agnostic Theists; Agnostic Atheists; & Gnostics Atheists I sometimes wonder where I fit in at any given time with the rest of the world's population.
[agnosticsinternational.org]

It's just amazing and fascinating how many ideas are out there!
[ozgurnevres.com]
[amp.reddit.com]


"Carl Sagan was a scientist, but he had some qualities that I associate with the Old Testament. When he came up against a wall—the wall of jargon that mystifies science and withholds its treasures from the rest of us, for example, or the wall around our souls that keeps us from taking the revelations of science to heart—when he came up against one of those topless old walls, he would, like some latter-day Joshua, use all of his many strengths to bring it down.

[…]

He believed that the little we do know about nature suggests that we know even less about God. We had only just managed to get an inkling of the grandeur of the cosmos and its exquisite laws that guide the evolution of trillions if not infinite numbers of worlds. This newly acquired vision made the God who created the World seem hopelessly local and dated, bound to transparently human misperceptions and conceits of the past.

[…]

Carl wanted us to see ourselves not as the failed clay of a disappointed Creator but as starstuff, made of atoms forged in the fiery hearts of distant stars. To him we were “starstuff pondering the stars; organized assemblages of 10 billion billion billion atoms considering the evolution of atoms; tracing the long journey by which, here at least, consciousness arose.” For him science was, in part, a kind of “informed worship.” No single step in the pursuit of enlightenment should ever be considered sacred; only the search was." - Sagan’s widow, Ann Druyan
[charterforcompassion.org]
[washingtonpost.com]

Where do you identify in the spectrum?

  • 8 votes
  • 21 votes
  • 4 votes
  • 0 votes
  • 1 vote
  • 15 votes
SergeTafCam 5 Apr 24
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

40 comments (26 - 40)

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

It's only a spectrum in some people's minds.

2

100% Atheist, that's where I stand and always will stand.

2

Well look at all these individualists who reject labels!!! Oops, "individualist" is a label. Ok, mavericks, then. Darn, another label.

Labels will never completely define us, but that doesn't mean they don't apply or aren't useful. It is called "language." More specifically, adjectives and nouns. Handy things, those words. Often helpful in getting some degree of our intended message across. Try it sometime.

BTW, judging by a lot of the responses, I think people are misconstruing some of the meanings. "Gnostic atheist" has nothing to do with with anything religious. It is not like the "Gnostic Gospels." It simply is a more specific category of atheist.

Obviously,this is a semantics game. If you aren't motivated, don't play. But it is wrong to claim that labels have absolutely no value. At least in science and other aspects of academic learning, they are crucial.

I did vote,btw. "Agnostic atheist." I know that I don't know most of of what runs the cosmos, ...so agnostic. Additionally, I see no reason to attribute the fact the cosmos is here to there being a god, ...so atheist.

2

I would like to see the third diagram large enough to read. Do you have a link?
Actually, I found it in one of your links but I still can't read it. 😟

2

None of the above. Can't speak for other non-subscribers to 'isms', but the whole point personally in rejecting gods and theologies was to assert individual validity that transcends labeling. Labeling and clinging to 'off the menu' other group myths kind of makes the process pointless.

The big myth is that one is in need of categorization for validation; as though no franchise means your system of thought is irrelevant.

It is impossible to agree or disagree with any point of view without finding oneself surrounded by a herd or two of identity cattle. When the issues change though, so does the company for an individual. Visiting doesn't translate into membership. Unfortunately to the hooved and branded it is beyond their scope.

2

None of the above, these sort of over complications are just stupid.
Answer one simple question,
are you of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence for the existence of a god(s)?
Answer yes You are a theist
Answer no You are an atheist
Answer I don't know You are an idiot

1

I agree with MsDemeanor below. (I'm a proud Atheist due to lack of ANY evidence for a supernatural anything. I agree with Thomas A. Edison who said, "So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk... All Bibles are man-made." )

But even more than that, at age 66, I have witnessed an explosion of Scientific knowledge just in my lifetime, and as an engineer, I always want to know how and why things work as they do!

Scientists are pushing back the wall of ignorance at an astounding rate! Religion thrives and even depends on our ignorance! But without ignorance, we have no need for their gods or superstitions.

While we may never know everything, what was once a mystery is now largely understood and much is even manipulated by Scientists and engineers. (For example: Did you know that approximately 75% of all processed food in our grocery stores contains (or was made from) Genetically Modified plants or animals: GMO's.

Big Al

1

"The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not." - Eric Hoffer, The True Believer

1

Seems to me like I'm a middle-of-the-road atheist. Is it possible to be neither a gnostic nor an agnostic?

It's apparently an either/or decision. Either you prefer evidence and data to support the existence or non-existence of a god....or you don't. Some say that the Bible is "evidence" enough for them...so that's where there's a gray area.

This chart might help?

@Robecology according to this chart, I would be an agnostic atheist since I don't believe I have any evidence that god doesn't exist.

What is a middle-of-the-road atheist? just asking.

1

SPOILER ALERT! I'm going to say something about his novel, "Contact". If you have not yet read it, and think that you might want to, please be warned that my comment below includes a spoiler, so you may want to stop here.


I always had the impression that Sagan was an Agnostic and an Atheist. This is based on a number of things that he said in his PBS series "Cosmos".

But, the final paragraph of "Contact" says that his protagonist, a long-avowed Atheist, now believes that the universe was created on purpose.

I don't believe that it was, and I was surprised that he would write a novel where his protagonist would come to this conclusion. So, now I don't know where he stood.

1

The only info on the meaning of the terms to vote on are found in the first diagram, "Belief Bubbles". The definition for "Agnostic Atheist" is the same as "Agnostic Theist". They both "don't believe in God". This used to be called just "agnostic" until people tried to include it within the definition of "atheist". I think the idea was to increase the number of "atheists" by expanding the definition. It just added confusion and presented new problems.

That diagram refers to a specific god and i would have to assume this is in reference to the god of Abraham. But, that's just a guess. When people say they are atheistic toward the Christian god, i call them "Christian Atheists" because they are referring to only that god. It helps clarify that we aren't talking about just any god. If this is about how people feel about gods in general, it should use the plural. You have to believe in the existence of gods before you can believe there is only one.

The terminology of Atheist according to any dictionary means, A- without, and Theist, Theism, -God, hence Atheist literally means " one who refutes/denies, etc, the existence/s of any and all God/Gods/Divine Supreme Beings what-so-ever.
FFS, this 'topic' has been hashed over more times than anyone cares to count, it's like trying to decide who originally invented the wheel almost.

@Triphid Thank you for replying.

  1. Dictionaries don't define the words, the user does. So, we have to go by how the person who submitted this poll defined it for us.
  2. You say an atheist is "one who refutes/denies, etc, the existence/s of any and all God/Gods/Divine Supreme Beings what-so-ever." I agree with you except that one can be atheist toward a specific god if used that way. I am in no way an atheist by this definition.
  3. Because something was hashed out in the past is not reason for it to not be hashed out now.
  4. We are not trying to determine something from the past. We are determining the meaning of terms for our communication in the present. It is very important to note the difference between atheist and agnostic. I am agnostic, but not at all atheist. To me, atheism is more harmful than theism itself. I do not want to ally with people who believe things to be absolutely a certain way without proof. But, my theory is that people who claim they are atheist don't really deny the existence of all gods.

@Untheist Well, for starters I perceive by a quick look at your Profile Blurb that you identify as being both Agnostic and Religious, how precisely can that be since, logically speaking, Agnostic means " Nothing can be known about God, etc, etc, i.e. it simply implies/means that as an Agnostic you are unsure, uncertain, have doubts about the existence of God and yet you also claim, by way of stating you are Religious, you believe there is a God.
Ergo and imo, your comments make as much, logically, to me as if you were trying to tell me that day is night and night is day.
So I simply reject your assertions for the fallacies and faulty interpretations that they appear to be in my opinion.

Sorry to hear that I am incompatible with Triphid. He is NOT incompatible with me and I hope in the future we can join together in support of that which we agree.

'Religious' does not mean anything about belief. It's refers to your participation in ritual. For instance, a church-going Christian is religious, but may have no belief at all that an actual zomby will return to devour the souls of the 'lucky'.

He did not ask me what i meant by 'religious'. If I'm the one answering the question, we would use my definition of the word, unless it was stated by 'agnostic.com' when i signed up, which it was not.

A philosophy i participate in is Agnosticism and i want Agnostics to develop a set of rituals that are compatible with reality and use that as the foundation for rituals that we, through evolution, require. That's a religion. If you're against religion, you're really not. You're just against religions with certain characteristics. For instance, marriage almost always reverts to a harmful religion for it's rituals. Parents unwittingly allow their children to be indoctrinated.

0

Henotheistic agnostic: I assume many gods (job title, with no assumption as to what they demand of anyone) in any sense "exist" and would be prepared to pick and choose if and when and to what degree inclined. In profound sympathy with atheistic agnostics.

In England until recently most of the latter called themselves simply "atheists" and were the pillars of society and were welcoming and protective and broad minded. Likewise, most believers were assumed to be to a degree agnostic. The term "creation" was used by everybody to denote simply "nature" and the fact that matter / life arrived.

That was before all the latest wedge driving. I hate all-or-nothing. I hate package dealing. Go cafeteria.

0

I think most of the time, when someone is discussing God, they are talking either about the God of the universe or one of the Gods created on Earth by mankind.
I think Einstein (although a Jew) believed in some sort of god of the universe, but not any earthly gods. He said "God doesn't play dice".

0

I just found a video of Ricky Gervais duking it out with Stephen Colbert. In it, Gervais says, "I'm an agnostic atheist." 😉
"Ricky Gervais and Stephen Colbert go head to head on religion."

0

Oh no! I didn't realize that updating the poll would reset vote counts. I apologize if your vote was discounted. Fortunately I took a look at the numbers before updating the entry. At the time I updated the options the poll the count was around the following:

3 Gnostic Atheist
6 Agnostic Atheist
1 Agnostic Theist

Hopefully the new entries will help make up for the vote counts that can't be readily seen, but for this comment.

In "The God Delusion", Richard Dawkins discussed the idea of a spectrum of theistic probability.
[atheistrepublic.com]

In this question, gnosticism and agnosticism are expressed in their epistemological context, applied to the topic of deities, or a deity, and the spectrum of theistic/atheistc probability.
[en.m.wikipedia.org]
[en.m.wikiversity.org]

For example, Thomas Henry Huxley referring to gnosticism said - "The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble."

[en.m.wikipedia.org]
[en.m.wikipedia.org]

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:488830
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.