Agnosticism – Victorian Web

Posted on November 2, 2015 by ev1

[Disponible en espaol]

his word, which has in the twentieth century come to signify little more than passive disbelief, was invented by Thomas Henry Huxley at Cambridge in the 1860s. According to Charles Blinderman, Professor Emeritus at Clark University, "The word seems to have been invented by him towards the end of the '60s, at an early meeting of the Metaphysical Society. He did not use the term until post-1870." Huxley, Darwin's great advocate, coined the term, he says, because everyone else was an "-ist" of one kind or another, and he had no label to apply to his own beliefs. He meant to distinguish himself from those whose faith provided answers to the most profound questions:

Does God exist? How can we know Him? (Why isn't He revealed more unambiguously in the scriptures?) Why would He create evil, and why would He allow the good to suffer and the wicked to flourish? Does He intervene miraculously in this world?

Thomas Henry Huxley. Portrait bust in Natural History Museum, London. Photograph by GPL.

He found that he could not answer those questions. Furthermore, he came to believe that no one could, without resorting to a knowledge (or gnosis) which goes beyond reason. Huxley, we must remember, was one of the first scientists to think of science as his profession; before the Victorian period, most scientific data was collected by vicars with time on their hands. As a professional scientist, Huxley insisted on reason and the empirical method as the only properly scientific way of knowing this world. For him faith meant believing what is literally incredible (i.e., unreasonable), and thus was impossible for a scientist. In dealing logically with the unknown, one may infer only phenomena like those he already understands. At first he believed that any faith involved bad logic (see Jean-Paul Sartre on "Bad Faith"), but later retreated from this position. Other agnostics (like Leslie Stephen, George Eliot, and W.K. Clifford) have been very willing to take up this position, however. Huxley always insisted that there was no such thing as organized Agnosticism, that as far as he was concerned the term described only his own beliefs. But to a large extent this child outgrew its parent.

The distinguishing characteristic of Victorian unbelief was the degree to which it became an alternative to traditional religion, and when men like Leslie Stephen and W.K. Clifford began calling themselves Agnostics, Agnosticism achieved the kind of success which Comte had tried to create for Positivism (which Huxley had dismissed as "Catholicism minus Christianity"). For the first time, men and women who could not accept the dogmas required by religions could avail themselves of a body of logical argument. By 1884, they even had their own journal, the Agnostic Annual.

Those who attacked Huxley and agnosticism tended to ignore the careful distinctions which he made, lumping agnostics in with atheists, materialists, and other "infidels." Taken in addition to the very traditional and conservative morals of the first Agnostics, who were careful to comport themselves like model middle-class Victorians, the distinctions are important to an explanation of the movement's influence. Where the atheist says that God does not exist, the agnostic says that reason can never be used to prove the existence of a being who transcends reason, and whether or not He exists, He does not intervene in human affairs, making speculation about His existence moot. We are on our own.

Twentieth-century thinkers, especially existentialists, have used agnosticism as a jumping-off point for their own philosophies, and the imprecision with which the term is used these days is a measure of its success. Much of that success is due to Huxley's creation of the name. "Agnosticism" has a cachet which neither "rational nonbelief" nor any other phrase could approximate.

Charles Blinderman, private letter, 1 July 2001. [In his letter Dr. Blindermin also points out that some "historians claim that Lady Burton used 'agosticism' before Huxley." Whether Huxley borrowed the term from her, or more likely independently coined it, his influence made the term current.]

Victorian Web

Religion

Created 1987; last modified 1 July 2001

Atheism vs Agnosticism – What’s the Difference?

Posted on October 12, 2015 by ev1

Atomic Imagery/Photodisc/Getty Images

By Austin Cline

An atheist is anyone who doesn't happen to believe in any gods, no matter what their reasons or how they approach the question of whether any gods exist. This is a very simple concept, but it's also widely misunderstood. For that reason, there are a variety of ways to state this. Atheism is: the lack of belief in gods, the absence of belief in gods, disbelief in gods, not believing in gods.

The most precise definition may be: an atheist is anyone who does not affirm the proposition "at least one god exists." Although it may seem convoluted, it has a number of important elements: there is a proposition, it's not a proposition made by atheists, and being an atheist requires nothing active or even conscious on the part of the atheist all that's required is not "affirming" a proposition made by others.

More: Atheism Basics for Beginners

An agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim to know for that any gods exist or not, no matter what their reasons or how they approach the question of whether any gods exist.

This is also a simple concept, but it may be as widely misunderstood as atheism is. One major problem is that atheism and agnosticism both deal questions about the existence of gods, but whereas atheism involves what a person does or does not believe, agnosticism involves what a person does or does not know. Belief and knowledge are related but nevertheless separate issues.

There's a simple test to tell if one is an agnostic or not.

Do you think you know for sure if any gods exist? If so, then you're not an agnostic. Do you think you know for sure that gods do not or even cannot exist? If so, then you're not an agnostic. Everyone who can't answer "yes" to one of those questions is a person who may or may not believe in one or more gods, but since they don't also claim to know for sure they are agnostic an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

More: Agnosticism Basics for Beginners

An agnostic atheist has two qualities: they don't happen to believe in any gods and they don't claim to know or sure that no gods can or do exist.

Not believing that some claim is true while also not claiming to know for sure that it's false is not only easy, it happens in lots and lots of different topics. It would be a surprise if it didn't happen when the topic is the existence of gods.

For some strange reason, though, many people have he mistaken impression that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. But why? There's nothing about "I don't know" which excludes "I don't believe." On the contrary, not only are they compatible but they frequently appear together because not knowing is frequently a reason for not believing. It's often a very good idea to not accept some proposition is true unless you have enough evidence that would qualify as knowledge.

An agnostic theist has two qualities: they believe in the existence of at least one god and they don't claim to know for sure that this god or gods definitely exist. Believing that some claim is true while also not claiming to know for sure that it's true is not only easy, it happens in lots and lots of different topics. Why shouldnt it also happen when the topic is the existence of gods?

Once again, many people have the mistaken impression that agnosticism and theism are mutually exclusive. They are convinced that agnosticism is some sort of "middle way" or "third way" between atheism and theism but why? There's nothing about "I don't know" which logically excludes "I believe." Sometimes it perhaps should because there are some claims that you shouldn't believe without sufficient evidence to qualify as knowledge. Being a juror in a murder trial would be a good example.

By now, the difference between being an atheist and being an agnostic should be pretty clear and pretty easy to remember. Atheism is about belief, or specifically what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge, or specifically about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not. These can be the exact same person, but need not be.

Every agnostic is also either an atheist or a theist because any given belief is either present or not there is no alternative to those two options. An agnostic may be unsure whether atheism or theism is more reasonable. An agnostic may not consider their theism or atheism very important. But regardless, belief that the proposition "at least one god is true" is present or not in everyone.

See original here:
Atheism vs Agnosticism - What's the Difference?

Strong Agnosticism vs. Weak Agnosticism: Different …

Posted on September 29, 2015 by ev1

Agnosticism may simply be the state of not knowing whether any gods exist or not, but people can take this position for different reasons and apply it in different ways. These differences then create variations in the ways in which one can be an agnostic. It is thus possible to separate agnostics in two groups, labeled strong agnosticism and weak agnosticism as analogs to strong atheism and weak atheism.

If someone is a weak agnostic, they state only that they do not know if any gods exist or not. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if some god exists or not is also not excluded. This is a very simple and general position and it is what people often think of when they think of agnosticism.

Strong agnosticism goes just a bit further. If someone is a strong agnostic, they dont merely claim that they dont know if any gods exist; instead, they also claim that no one can or does know if any gods exist. Whereas weak agnosticism is a position that only describes the state of knowledge of one person, strong agnosticism makes a statement about knowledge and reality themselves.

For reasons that are probably obvious, weak agnosticism is the easier of the two to defend. In the first place, if you claim that you dont know if any gods exist, others should accept that as true unless they have very good reasons to doubt you but that is rather trivial.

More important is the agnostic premise that one shouldnt make knowledge claims in the absence of clear and convincing evidence but that, too, can be relatively straightforward so long as the distinction between knowledge and belief is maintained.

Because the claim of strong agnosticism goes beyond the individual speaker, it is a bit more difficult to support. Strong agnostics may often point out that there simply isnt any good evidence or arguments which can allow for a person to assert that they know that a god exists and, in fact, the evidence for any one god is no better or worse than the evidence for any other god. Therefore, it is argued, the only responsible thing to do is to suspend judgment altogether.

While this is a reasonable position, it doesnt quite justify the claim that knowledge of gods is impossible. Thus, the next step that a strong agnostic needs to take is to define just what is meant by gods; if it can be argued that it is logically or physically impossible for humans to have knowledge of any being with the assigned attributes, then strong agnosticism may be justified.

Unfortunately, this process effectively narrows the field of what does and does not qualify as a god to something much smaller than what humans have actually believed in. This, then, can result in Straw Man fallacy because not everyone believes in god as the strong agnostics define the concept (a problem shared with strong atheists, actually).

One interesting criticism of this strong agnosticism is that for a person to adopt the position that knowledge of gods is impossible, they essentially concede that they know something about gods not to mention the nature of reality itself. This, then, would suggest that strong agnosticism is self-refuting and untenable.

See original here:
Strong Agnosticism vs. Weak Agnosticism: Different ...

Atheism, Agnosticism, and the New Atheists – Reasons for God

Posted on September 29, 2015 by ev1

Richard Dawkins has famously quipped, We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

But what happens when we go one god further?

This series of posts examines the profound philosophical and practical challenges that atheism faces.

Throughout, my strong desire is to communicate a high level of respect for atheists and agnostics. The conversation between people of different perspectives should always be done with as much kindness and appreciation for one another as possible.

At the same time, I attempt an honest and searching examination at the ideas and arguments behind atheism (the worldview). To get us started, Ive provided a careful definition of atheism.

Most of these writings contrast a naturalistic picture of the world, where everything is composed of matter, energy, and space-time, with a theistic perspective, which includes everything in the naturalistic picture, but adds in the idea of a loving God who created the universe and graced it with beauty, order, and love.

I hope you enjoy them. To continue the conversation, please join the Reasons for God Facebook Page or use our Contact Form. For a more in-depth look at these topics, we have a number of book recommendations as well.

One of the most notable and repeated ways that atheist leaders such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have attacked religion is by attacking religious people. Quotes abound, but here are a few particularly juicy ones. No matter what you think of the content, you have to admire the punchy, clever style of their

There is a tension within atheism (Please notice how I define atheism): 1. On a personal level, many if not most atheists are generally hopeful people. 2. On a philosophical level, atheism as a worldview cannot sustain hope. Together, these two ideas lead to the conclusion that: 3. Atheists who choose to be hopeful are making a

One of the important qualities that religious dialogue often lacks is respect. We need to be deliberate in considering the strengths of the positions with which we disagree. I have noticed that looking for the good points of different worldviews is often correlated with the ability to respect the people who believe differently than

Many atheists, dedicated to doing what is good, are offended by arguments that the atheistic worldview has problems with morality. It is frustrating for an atheist who genuinely loves doing kind actions to be told that, philosophically speaking, their lifestyle doesnt fit with their worldview. After all, for that person, it does fit

It seems the atheistic universe has no room for purpose. (Please notice how I define atheism). Its important to remember that I cheerfully acknowledge that many atheists take themselves to be living purposeful lives. (Not that the consistent atheist, who finds no purpose to their life, is likely to object! What would be the

In a desire to foster a great respect and appreciation between atheists and Christians, and for other religious people, I want to celebrate the high esteem that we often share for science: for the scientific method, for scientific experiments, for scientists, for scientific results, and so on. To begin, many atheists have made

Let's look at the relationship between atheism and selfishness. Lets be clear: I am not discussing atheists and accusing them of selfishness. Many of my secular friends are generous, kind, hospitable, friendly folks. I dont think, in general, that they view the world strictly through the prism of evolutionary logic. But what I do

Many (but not all) atheists argue for and accept that free will in an illusion. Why? Because this conclusion follows logically from the basic principles of atheism. I want to clarify why all atheists should deny the existence of free will or, by contrast, why all who believe that they have free will should reject atheism. (See also

As I have argued earlier, atheism leads to determinism. (Please notice how I define atheism). The most important reason that atheism leads to determinism is that atheism requires that everything be subject to naturalistic, scientific explanation. From an atheistic perspective, there can be no thing, event, or action which cannot be given

I want to clarify the problems with determinism under atheism. (Please notice how I define atheism). Thankfully, Sam Harris has already identified one of the problems for us: What most people overlook is that free will does not even correspond to any subjective fact about us. Consequently, even rigorous introspection soon grows as

Atheism the worldview, not the people group has a problem with evil. (Please notice how I define atheism). The problem is sometimes called the naturalistic fallacy, which states that you cannot derive an ought from an is. In ordinary language, that means you cannot go from a description of how things are to a

My goal is to clarify the logical connections between atheism, determinism, and negative social outcomes. (Please notice how I define atheism). It is very important to note that I am not saying that atheists (the people) are responsible for more negative social outcomes compared to people with other belief systems. There are a wide range

Have you ever felt wretched, just sick to your stomach, over how youve hurt someone else? I want to talk about how atheism deals with these experiences. (Please notice how I define atheism). At a time in my life when I should have known better, I put myself in this position. I decided to start dating someone because I was insecure

The standard disclaimer: I am not speaking about or attacking atheists. Instead, my goal is to rationally work through the logical implications of the atheistic worldview. (Please notice how I define atheism). My conclusion is that, if atheism is true, then we need to re-imagine how we understand human beings. Atheism requires us to

As a response to an earlier discussion of atheism and morality, one person wrote, writing, Atheists have morals and act morally because morality isn't related to existence of gods. I think this raises a very interesting question: if atheism is true, what is morality related to? Granted, it wouldnt be related to the existence of

Another great quality of many atheists, which is too often unappreciated by Christians and other religious people, is an openness to doubt, a flexibility to look at the world from different angles, and an interest in the rational critique of established positions. Of course there are atheists, who as much as some Christians, seem to

In a recent opinion piece for The Washington Post, Paula Kirby writes about how she and other atheists find meaning and purpose for their lives. As she sees it, their appreciation of lifes meaning comes from a number of sources, including the inherent satisfaction of doing good work and the built-in empathy that is explainable by

In an article in Passionate Conviction, which is a superb collection of essays, Craig Hazen argues that, among all the great religious traditions in the world, Christianity is the best place to start a search for truth. He offers four reasons: 1. Christianity is testable. In particular, Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15 that

Did Abraham Lincoln really exist? It is a hard question to answer, but an important one. Millions if not billions of people believe in His existence, but that doesn't mean they are right. As Richard Dawkins has wisely said, "The question is not "How many millions believe it?"... But "Is it TRUE? The question is not "Is your belief

Escape from Camp 14, by Blaine Harden and Shin In Geun, is a powerful expose of the ongoing horror story that is North Korea. As you read, consider the question: is evil real? Is the North Korean prison system evil - or is that just a word we use to describe our personal feelings about it?By retelling the story of Shin, a North Korean

Has science replaced religion as a guide to morality? Are our genes a better guide to right and wrong than revelation from a divine being? Can science lead us to a new morality? A recent study, by Abigail Marsh and her team at Georgetown, might imply that science is replacing religion when it comes to our moral beliefs. Their study

One of the most common misunderstandings, in even the most gracious and empathetic conversations between Christians and atheists, occurs because of the difference between ontology and epistemology. But with a little philosophical reflection, we can clear up this confusion and help atheists and Christians understand one

At The Richard Dawkins Foundation For Reason and Science you can find a witty and urbane video of TV host and comedian Bill Maher. In the video Maher is primarily arguing that atheism is not a religion." Maher contrasts the difference between atheism and religion like this: When it comes to religion, were not two sides of the same

Now that Boston is secured, Tamerlan Tsarnaev is dead, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is in custody, people are starting to ask: what is the best punishment for Dzhokhar? Many want to hold him responsible for his actions. But did you know that leading atheist thinkers would disagree? For instance, as Richard Dawkins has argued, As

Dr. William Lane Craig spoke at Boston College Law School on March 16, 2011, on the topic "Is God Necessary for Morality?" The event was co-hosted by the Christian Legal Society at B.C. Law School and Telos Ministries. The audio recording of his lecture, including the Q&A afterwards, is now available. Unfortunately, some of the

What's better? To be fully reasonable or to have faith in God? Many atheists think it is better to be fully reasonable and scientific than cling to the false comfort of religious stories. A leading example of this perspective is Dr. Alex Rosenberg, a professor of philosophy at Duke University. In his bookThe Atheist's Guide to

Is human life absurd, meaningless, and empty? Or do our lives have purpose and significance? One way to find an answer to these big questions is to ask another question: if we never existed or ceased to exist, would it matter? For instance, if there was one less piece of dust in a lifeless galaxy five billion light years away, this

The New York Times recently published online a piece entitled Confessions of an Ex-Moralist by Dr. Joel Marks, a scholar at the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale University. His post offers an opportunity to discuss some arguments for and against amoralism, which will highlight the problem that atheists have in

This week the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science decided to link to my post Moral Clarity and Richard Dawkins, which resulted in a vigorous discussion on their website. Two kinds of responses seem appropriate. The first is to provide a robust defense of the position I staked out in the original post, which

In a recent article for The Huffington Post, Michael Shermer, the founder of The Skeptics Society, called me a skeptic! Admittedly, he didn't use my name, but he did define my position. Here's how he defines skepticism: In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. We are curious but cautious. Or, I often hear, "Oh,

Moral confusion is a common problem. When a conversation begins about the difference between right and wrong, everyone can feel the tension, because admitting you're wrong isn't just about saying you have bad reasons, but can become about whether or not you are a bad person. Sometimes we argue past each other because we're using the same

Earlier this week I posted Moral Clarity and Richard Dawkins,which was then reposted and discussed at the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website. My first response to the comment thread pointed out the frequent logical fallacies (and incivility) in the comment thread. Today I want to continue an effort to

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins writes that a Christian child is nonexistent. As he puts it: Atheists need to raise their own consciousness of the anomaly: religious opinion is the one kid of parental opinion that by almost universal consent can be fastened upon children who are, in truth, too young to know what their

The word spiritual is a common, everyday word that many people use to describe a wide variety of apparently transcendent experiences. But should we be more careful? Has spiritual become a word that some people deliberately use in order to deceive others? Paula Kirbys perspective A commentator for The Washington

Paula Kirby, a consultant to secular organizations, recently wrote in an article for The Washington Post that, Religion is a parasite that feeds on all that is good in humanity as a whole and then proclaims it as its own gift to the world. That's a very strong, unqualified, and unconditional statement. If true, religious

Dr. Matt Dickerson, a professor of computer science at Middlebury College, recently gave a lecture at MIT on the relationship between physicalism and reason. The lecture was based on the fourth chapter of his book The Mind and the Machine. After developing an account of human identity on physicalism, and developing an account of what a

Christopher Hitchens, in his Introduction to the Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever, has a witty counter to those who claim that religious people are especially good: My own response has been to issue a challenge: name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made

In a post reflecting on the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Dr. Sam Harris speaks about religious practice in sharply negative terms. For instance: Parents teaching religious doctrine to their children is nothing less than the emotional and intellectual abuse of a child, is oppressive, and represents terrifying ignorance and

On his blog earlier this week, Sam Harris argues for Morality Without Free Will. Sam Harris has become an influential public intellectual through his three New York Times bestsellers, his articles in many leading journals and magazines, and in his capacity as the CEO of Project Reason. In this response, I will summarize his

In the course of having thousands of conversations about the ultimate issues of life, Ive encountered many skeptics who, out of a deep respect for their religious friends, are reluctant to explain their objections to faith. These skeptics have noticed that, for their friends, the practice of religion is fundamental to filling their

In preparing for the upcoming launch ofTrue Reason: Confronting the Irrationality of theNew Atheism(March 1), I've been reading and re-reading the work of many New Atheists. It is a bit tiresome, after a while, to only read attacks against religion instead of a positive, evidence-based casefor atheism. So I've shifted gears and

A common idea is that Christians are particularly prone to circular reasoning. For instance, Winston Wu pulls no punches at DebunkingSkeptics.com, saying, "Christian beliefs are based on 100 percent circular reasoning that lack any valid initial basis or foundation, which Christians do not see due tobrainwashing and mind-control."

As part of one of the biggest religion stories of the past few years, Time Magazine said in March 2012, in an entry titled "The Rise Of The Nones," that, "The fastest-growing religious group in the U.S. is the category of people who say they have no religious affiliation." In October 2012, the Pew Research Center indicated that

Many atheists claim that the proper definition of atheism is, as Austin Cline of the Atheism channel on About.com states, "simply the absence of belief in gods." But if atheism is a lack of belief and not a positive affirmation of what is real, good, and true, then the atheist immediately runs into serious problems. This post is

Why didn't Jesus teach His disciples the basics of public health? That's one of the questions that Dr. Richard Carrier raised in a debate with Dr. David Marshall on February 9, 2013. Carrier raised this point as part of his argument against the debate's topic, namely, "Is the Christian Faith Reasonable?" Why is this important? Because

Do you want other people to be happy? If you had a choice between making the world either happier or more miserable, which would you choose? Which choice would be the moral one? These are questions that Dr. Sam Harris, a best-selling author and neuroscientist, has been discussing for many years now. His most prominent book on the

"Why Naturalism Is False (or Irrational)" is a talk given to student organizations at both Harvard University and Boston College Law School in April 2013. The following notes reflect the substance of my talk after introductory comments: Our first task tonight is to define naturalism. What idea is it that I believe is false or

More:
Atheism, Agnosticism, and the New Atheists - Reasons for God

Agnosticism – Conservapedia

Posted on August 31, 2015 by ev1

Agnosticism is, in weaker forms, an affirmation of ignorance regarding the existence of a God or gods, and in stronger forms, the assertion that the existence of a deity or deities is unknowable. By contrast Atheism is a strong form of ignorance that denies the existence of God.[1]

The proponent of the weaker form does not make a claim to knowledge about existence, but he simply suspends from making a decision. A suspension of decision, in terms of logic, does not have a truth value, and therefore they are not making an argument. The proponent of the stronger form goes a step further and makes a claim to knowledge by saying, I know that the existence of God cannot be known.

The word "agnostic" was coined in 1869 by T. H. Huxley[2] from the Greek roots a- not, and -gnostic, knowing; the philosopher Herbert Spencer was influential in spreading its use. One nineteenth-century saw held that "There is no god but the Unknowable, and Herbert Spencer is his prophet."[3]

Some accuse agnostics of being cowardly atheists, due to their supposedly wishy-washy rejection of God. It is also said by particular Christian groups, particularly but not exclusively in the United States of America, that those who know of Jesus but do not accept him are just as damned as those who reject him explicitly.

See also: Atheists doubting the validity of atheism

Agnostics differ from atheists in that they do not deny the existence of a deity while not affirming the existence of one (thus occupying a "middle-ground").

Further division lies with in two kinds of agnosticism: Agnostic Theism and Agnostic Atheism. Agnostic Theists believe in a god but do not claim to know there is a god. Agnostic Atheists do not believe in a god but do not claim to know there is not a god. Thus the distinction between Agnostics as opposed to Theists or Atheists is they do not claim knowledge even if they claim a belief. So contrary to what some may believe, they are not opinion-less on the subject.

Many religious believers make no distinction among non-believers. If you're not sure that God exists, they combine the unsure and "surely not" into one lump. For these believers, an "atheist" is any faithless person who doesn't believe in God.

Among those who have not decided whether to believe in a god, or to disbelieve in the existence of one, there are two main groups:

Bertrand Russell once wrote that, in describing his beliefs,

Christian apologist Norman Geisler wrote on complete agnosticism:

Using academic studies, survey data and other information, supporters of the Question evolution! campaign maintain that there is a lack of sound leadership within the agnostic/atheist and evolutionist communities in dealing with the global decline of atheism and agnosticism.

See:

Agnosticism has become a fairly common belief system in Western culture with 14% of people in the United States, 32% of people in France and 35% of people in Great Britain self-identifying as agnostics.[6]

Per capita atheists and agnostics in the United States give significantly less to charity than theists.

Agnosticism – By Branch / Doctrine – The Basics of Philosophy

Posted on August 31, 2015 by ev1

Introduction | Types of Agnosticism | Support for Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the belief that the nature and existence of gods is unknown and inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience. Technically, this position is strong agnosticism: in popular usage, an agnostic may just be someone who takes no position, pro or con, on the existence of gods, or who has not yet been able to decide, or who suspends judgment due to lack of evidence one way or the other (weak agnosticism).

Agnosticism maintains that the nature and attributes of God are beyond the grasp of man's finite and limited mind. Agnostics generally claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God or gods, or that, while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. In both cases this involves some form of skepticism.

The earliest professed agnostic was Protagoras, although the term itself (from the Greek "agnosis" meaning "without knowledge") was not coined in English until the 1880s by T. H. Huxley.

Some of the most important agnostic philosophers are Protagoras, T. H. Huxley, Robert Ingersoll and Bertrand Russell, but many more public figures have been self-confessed agnostics, including Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Milton Friedman, Carl Sagan and Mark Twain.

The Greek Sophist Protagoras was probably the earliest agnostic. He professed that the existence of the gods was unknowable in the 5th Century B.C.

Huxley was responsible for creating the terms "agnostic" and "agnosticism" to sum up his own position on Metaphysics. His agnosticism was a response to the clerical intolerance of the 1860's as it tried to suppress scientific discoveries which appeared to clash with scripture.

Ingersoll, known as "The Great Agnostic", was an influential American politician in the late 19th Century, and a strong supporter of Freethought (the philosophical viewpoint that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logic and not be influenced by emotion, authority, tradition or dogma). He popularized and justified the agnostic position, which he summed up in his 1986 lecture "Why I Am An Agnostic".

Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian" and "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?" are considered classic statements of agnosticism. He was careful to distinguish between his atheism as regards certain types of god concepts, and his agnosticism as regards some other types of superhuman intelligence. Though he generally considered himself an agnostic in a purely philosophical context, he said that the label "atheist" conveyed a more accurate understanding of his views in a popular context.

Read more from the original source:
Agnosticism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

Apatheism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted on August 17, 2015 by ev1

Apatheism ( a portmanteau of apathy and theism/atheism), also known as pragmatic atheism or practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity.

An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. An apatheist lives as if there are no gods and explains natural phenomena without reference to any deities. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view.[1]

In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to their life. Some apatheists hold that if it were possible to prove that God does or does not exist, their behavior would not change.[2]

Practical atheism can take various forms:

A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalismthe "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."[4]

Apathetic agnosticism claims that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little theological interest.[5]

Historically, practical atheism was considered by some people to be associated with moral failure, willful ignorance, and impiety. Those considered practical atheists were said to behave as though God, ethics, and social responsibility did not exist; they abandoned duty and embraced hedonism.

According to the French Catholic philosopher tienne Borne, "Practical atheism is not the denial of the existence of God, but complete godlessness of action; it is a moral evil, implying not the denial of the absolute validity of the moral law but simply rebellion against that law." In response to Voltaire, French philosopher Denis Diderot wrote: "It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God."[6][7]

In the 21st century, pragmatic atheism has been seen in a more positive light. The journalist Jonathan Rauch believes that "apatheism is to be celebrated as nothing less than a major civilizational advance. Religion, as countless acts of violence in the name of God have underscored, remains the most divisive and volatile of social forces... Apatheism, therefore, should not be assumed to represent a lazy recumbency... Just the opposite: it is the product of a determined cultural effort to discipline the religious mindset, and often of an equally determined personal effort to master the spiritual passions. It is not a lapse. It is an achievement."[8]

An apatheist may justify their position using one of these perspectives, or they may combine all of the below to create their own attitude towards belief in deities.

This apatheistic argument states that morals are present in human society and do not rely on religion to be a part of the human experience. Apatheists recognize that religion may provide a "comfort" for many people around the world, but apatheists do not need religion to be content with the morality of their lives and therefore live without it.[citation needed] This is known as "moral apatheism". This opinion is often expressed by The Atheist Experience co-host Jeff Dee.[citation needed]

Indifference is better known as indifferentism, the belief that all religions are equal in value. Use of indifferentism in this context was popularized by Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason.[9] Kant argues that indifferentism represents an extreme form of skepticism that argues that there is no rational ground for accepting any philosophical position.[9] It is often associated with moral relativism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia ascribes indifferentism to all atheistic, materialistic, pantheistic, and agnostic philosophies, as well as religious pluralist philosophy, such as that espoused by Rousseau.[10]

Philosopher Daniel Dennett has postulated that a significant percentage of adherents of popular faiths only participate socially and are philosophically apatheistic. Journalist Jonathan Rauch described apatheism as "a disinclination to care all that much about one's own religion, and an even stronger disinclination to care about other people's".[11]

This argument takes a more scientific perspective, criticizing blind faith (faith without logical evidence to support it). It argues that if a deity or deities truly wanted people to believe in them, then said deity or deities could demonstrate their existence with miracles, and explain their plan(s) for humanity or the lack thereof. Being all-powerful, if they truly wanted humans to believe, they could send a divine sign not left up to interpretation. This is also a popular argument with antitheists; Matt Dillahunty makes it with great frequency.

Since they do not seem to care if humans believe or not, apatheists will not care until they show them a reason to, and perhaps not even if such an event occurred. Richard Dawkins has gone so far as to claim this position in interviews[12] (this is in essence the argument from nonbelief).

See the original post:
Apatheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is Agnosticism? A Short Explanation

Posted on August 7, 2015 by ev1

So, what is the definition of agnosticism? Some imagine that agnosticism is an alternative to atheism, but those people have typically bought into the mistaken notion of the single, narrow definition of atheism. Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, the domain of theism and atheism.

A means without and gnosis means knowledge. Hence, agnostic: without knowledge, but specifically without knowledge of gods.

It may be technically correct, but rare, to use the word in reference to any other knowledge as well, for example: I am agnostic about whether O.J. Simpson actually killed his ex-wife.

Despite such possible usages, it remains the case that the term agnosticism is used fairly exclusively with respect to a single issue: do any gods exist or not? Those who disclaim any such knowledge or even that any such knowledge is possible are properly labeled agnostics. Everyone who claims that such knowledge is possible or that they have such knowledge might be called gnostics (note the lowercase g).

Here gnostics is not referring to the religious system known as Gnosticism, but rather the sort of person who claims to have knowledge about the existence of gods. Because such confusion may come easily and because there is generally little call for such a label, it is unlikely that you will ever see it used; it is only presented here as a contrast to help explain agnosticism.

Confusion about agnosticism commonly arises when people assume that agnosticism actually just means that a person is undecided about whether or not a god exists, and also that atheism is limited to strong atheism the assertion that no gods do or can exist.

If those assumptions were true, then it would be accurate to conclude that agnosticism is some sort of third way between atheism and theism. However, those assumptions are not true. Commenting on this situation, Gordon Stein wrote in his essay The Meaning of Atheism and Agnosticism:

See more here:
What is Agnosticism? A Short Explanation

What Is Agnosticism? – About.com Religion & Spirituality

Posted on July 3, 2015 by ev1

What is Agnosticism?:

A means without and gnosis means knowledge. Hence, agnostic: without knowledge, but specifically without knowledge of gods. Strictly speaking, agnosticism is about knowledge, and knowledge is a related but separate issue from belief, the domain of theism and atheism. Thus agnosticism is not a third way between atheism and theism. Read More...

What is Philosophical Agnosticism?:

Philosophically, agnosticism can be described as being based upon two separate principles. The first principle is epistemological in that it relies upon empirical and logical means for acquiring knowledge about the world. The second principle is moral in that it insists that we have an ethical duty not to assert claims for ideas which we cannot adequately support either through evidence or logic. Read More...

Defining Agnosticism: Standard Dictionaries:

Dictionaries define agnosticism in a variety of ways. Some are close to how close to how Thomas Henry Huxley defined it when he coined the term. Some define it as a third way between atheism and theism. Some go further and describe agnosticism as a doctrine, something that Huxley took pains to deny. Read More...

Strong Agnosticism vs. Weak Agnosticism:

If someone is a strong agnostic, they dont merely claim that they dont know if any gods exist; instead, they also claim that no one can or does know if any gods exist. Read More...

Are Agnostics Just Sitting On the Fence?:

Read this article:
What Is Agnosticism? - About.com Religion & Spirituality

agnosticism | Britannica.com

Posted on June 20, 2015 by ev1

agnosticism,(from Greek agnstos, unknowable), strictly speaking, the doctrine that humans cannot know of the existence of anything beyond the phenomena of their experience. The term has come to be equated in popular parlance with skepticism about religious questions in general and in particular with the rejection of traditional Christian beliefs under the impact of modern scientific thought.

The word agnosticism was first publicly coined in 1869 at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in London by T.H. Huxley, a British biologist and champion of the Darwinian theory of evolution. He coined it as a suitable label for his own position. It came into my head as suggestively antithetical to the Gnostic of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant.

Huxleys statement brings out both the fact that agnosticism has something to do with not knowing, and that this not knowing refers particularly to the sphere of religious doctrine. Etymology, however, and now common usage, do permit less limited uses of the term. The Soviet leader Lenin, for instance, in his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1908), distinguished the extremes of true Materialism on the one hand and the bold Idealism of George Berkeley, an 18th-century Idealist, on the other. He recognized as attempted halfway houses between them the agnosticisms of the Scottish Skeptic David Hume and the great German critical philosopher Immanuel Kantagnosticisms that here consisted in their contentions about the unknowability of the nature, or even the existence, of things-in-themselves (realities beyond appearances).

The essence of Huxleys agnosticismand his statement, as the inventor of the term, must be peculiarly authoritativewas not a profession of total ignorance, nor even of total ignorance within one special but very large sphere; rather, he insisted, it was not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle, viz., to follow reason as far as it can take you; but then, when you have established as much as you can, frankly and honestly to recognize the limits of your knowledge. It is the same principle as that later proclaimed in an essay on The Ethics of Belief (1876) by the British mathematician and philosopher of science W.K. Clifford: It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. Applied by Huxley to fundamental Christian claims, this principle yields characteristically skeptical conclusions: speaking, for example, of the Apocrypha (ancient scriptural writings excluded from the biblical canon), he wrote: One may suspect that a little more critical discrimination would have enlarged the Apocrypha not inconsiderably. In the same spirit, Sir Leslie Stephen, 19th-century literary critic and historian of thought, in An Agnostics Apology, and Other Essays (1893), reproached those who pretended to delineate the nature of God Almighty with an accuracy from which modest naturalists would shrink in describing the genesis of a black beetle.

Agnosticism in its primary reference is commonly contrasted with atheism thus: The Atheist asserts that there is no God, whereas the Agnostic maintains only that he does not know. This distinction, however, is in two respects misleading: first, Huxley himself certainly rejected as outright falserather than as not known to be true or falsemany widely popular views about God, his providence, and mans posthumous destiny; and second, if this were the crucial distinction, agnosticism would for almost all practical purposes be the same as atheism. It was indeed on this misunderstanding that Huxley and his associates were attacked both by enthusiastic Christian polemicists and by Friedrich Engels, the co-worker of Karl Marx, as shame-faced atheists, a description that is perfectly applicable to many of those who nowadays adopt the more comfortable label.

Agnosticism, moreover, is not the same as Skepticism, which, in the comprehensive and classical form epitomized by the ancient Greek Skeptic Sextus Empiricus (2nd and 3rd centuries ad), confidently challenges not merely religious or metaphysical knowledge but all knowledge claims that venture beyond immediate experience. Agnosticism is, as Skepticism surely could not be, compatible with the approach of Positivism, which emphasizes the achievements and possibilities of natural and social sciencethough most agnostics, including Huxley, have nonetheless harboured reserves about the more authoritarian and eccentric features of the system of Auguste Comte, the 19th-century founder of Positivism.

Here is the original post:
agnosticism | Britannica.com

Think Atheist: World Leaders of Atheism, Agnosticism, and Christianity – Video

Posted on April 25, 2015 by ev1

Think Atheist: World Leaders of Atheism, Agnosticism, and Christianity
WELCOME ALL! This is the second introduction video welcoming everyone to my channel, "Looking for Truth". The purpose of this video is to give an account of the professionalism and knowledge...

By: Looking For Truth

The rest is here:
Think Atheist: World Leaders of Atheism, Agnosticism, and Christianity - Video

Agnosticism Meaning – Video

Posted on April 23, 2015 by ev1

Agnosticism Meaning
Video shows what agnosticism means. The view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable, especially regarding knowledge not based on experience or perceivable phenomena.. The...

By: SDictionary

See original here:
Agnosticism Meaning - Video

Noxious Ramblings: Atheism & Agnosticism – Video

Posted on April 19, 2015 by ev1

Noxious Ramblings: Atheism Agnosticism
This is a very brief video regarding a topic that came up during the stream, and I figured I #39;d expand upon it a bit since it #39;s very intimately tied to my past. Cheap Games http://www.g2a.com/...

By: NoxiousGLHF

See original here:
Noxious Ramblings: Atheism & Agnosticism - Video

NAB 2015: Grass Valley Unveils 4K Slo-Mo LDX, IP Workflow

Posted on April 14, 2015 by ev1

LAS VEGASThe new 4K LDX addresses two issues that Grass Valley President Marco Lopez said were problematic in live 4K sports production. The inability to get close and slow down.

We were hearing that existing 4K cameras have limited storytelling capability for sports, he said. They have limited depth of field and zoom range. The LDX 86 has the same zoom range and depth of field as HD cameras.

Another key problem that exists is that producers have had to choose between 4K and higher frame rates.

The LDX 86 Universethe new flagship of the LDX lineis switchable between 6x, 4K and HD. The switching is done through a software license, so if you need 4K capability for an event, you can activate it with a software key, he said.

The LDX 86 has Grass Valleys proprietary Xensium-FT CMOS, and can be used in any camera position where a 1x, 3x or 6x camera is required.

The 86 was introduced in conjunction with the new K2 Dyno Universe, which does replay optimized for 6x and 4K.

Existing 4K servers support only a fraction of the channels they support in HD, so they require double the servers, double the rack space and double the operators, Lopez said.

The new K2 Dyno Universe does replay optimized for 6x and 4K in the same rack space, with the same number of servers and the same number of operators as an HD workflow, he said. It relies on solid state storage and is scalable by networking multiple systems over 10GigE. Grass also developed a new fiber transmission system, the XCU XF Universe to support the system.

With the IP transition is accelerating like a waterfall, Grass is trying to get in front of it. Lopez said that in talks with 200 customers around the world, three main points emerged about IP workflows: multiple video streams over a single Ethernet cable; format agnosticism; and the ability to integrate video from multiple remote facilities.

He said Grass created a glass-to-glass IP production system that incorporates both proprietary and generic routing from Cisco, HP and Arista, software-defined networking and commercial off-the-shelf hardware.

Go here to see the original:
NAB 2015: Grass Valley Unveils 4K Slo-Mo LDX, IP Workflow

Comprehend complex data sets through visual representations

Posted on April 10, 2015 by ev1

Component technologies such as visualisation tools, modelling techniques and user interfaces have been heavily influencing the success of data visualisation (DV) solutions. As such, DV researchers and solution providers should form strategic alliances to drive advancements in component technologies. Only then can DV emerge as a holistic solution, which can deliver simplicity and a high level of user controllability.

New analysis from Frost & Sullivan, Data Visualisation - An Outlook on Disruptive Techniques (http://www.frost.com/d549), forecasts that the DV technology value chain will bring more application developers into its fold by adopting core software technologies with features such as high agnosticism, ability to integrate easily, and plug-in options for a wide range of applications. This, in turn, will enable faster diffusion of DV technologies across various application segments.

For instance, with its efficient interface that can deal with heavy numbers and algorithms to considerably reduce the load on big data analytics engines, DV is on the verge of becoming the most indispensable technology for big data solution providers.

"Big data solution providers are beginning to realise the need for varied DV techniques to enhance their analytics capabilities," noted Technical Insights Senior Research Analyst Sathya Vendhan. "Small- and medium-sized DV solution providers are therefore likely to strike collaboration deals with big data companies in the next three to six years."

The rapid increase of DV in small-screen mobile devices is also propelling solution providers to extend their reach beyond companies to the individual customer level. Small- and medium- sized DV technology providers will begin to occupy a major part of the market, as solutions evolve to provide interactive visuals on day-to-day activities, health conditions and other vital information.

"DV solution providers will imbibe more customisation and personalisation techniques for product development," added Vendhan. "To facilitate this transformation, DV research firms will create algorithms, which can be used in simple mobile devices as well as integrated in any sector-specific application."

So far, however, it has been difficult for DV application developers to convert general algorithms to application-specific functionalities due to compatibility issues. To overcome this issue, the majority of DV solution providers in the market are now using open source-based algorithms.

The challenges for DV hardware technology developers have been slightly different. For large-scale DV systems, hardware technology developers need to develop processors and servers that can support the charting engines seamlessly. Moreover, they have to ensure the availability of high-quality RAM, which is required to perform complex analytics.

Notwithstanding the market challenges, DV is expected to have the maximum impact on social networking. The technology's ability to provide a full view of even the minute details of activities in the social network medium has set it up to become the most needed medium for marketing, entertainment, governance and crime investigation as well.

Read more from the original source:
Comprehend complex data sets through visual representations

Agnostic Catholic

Posted on April 10, 2015 by ev1

I BELIEVE in God for I had been raised God-fearing in a Catholic family. From generations then, Catholicism has run in the veins of my Kin. And this may well explain why since Kindergarten to elementary, high school toward college and graduate school, I had been in a sectarian Jesuit academic institution. With both forces at play -- family and school -- no doubt the Catholic faith has been reinforced to me like the Pavlovian conditioning or Skinners rewards and punishments.

As such, no doubt, I have known of prayers and doctrines that are of Catholic. I have memorized the different books of the bible, as well as the saints. I conform to Catholic traditions. I attend masses during Christmases, New Years, Holy Week and all other special masses aside from my birthday.

I have always been a conformist to the rituals of my Faith. And beyond dramaturgy or staged social interaction, I have always found the gospel and the bible insightful. I have always gleamed clarity to the lengthy homilies and litanies of the priest. I have always been moved by how their brief anecdotes capture the realities of daily living in the parallel world of good and evil.

But thats just it.

As I was growing up, I have seen the other side of the coin -- the abuses of some Catholic priests centuries ago with some of its remnants surviving the post-modern days. No one will argue in history classes that Spanish colonizers then "forced" their Western culture to our primitive ancestors under the banner of religion. If one closely examines history, was it not a social mechanism of control to use "garote" on Filipino heretics, who refuse to accept the Catholic faith. Most of the victims must have been our Muslim ancestors, thus, the division between some of the Catholics and Islam in the current era.

Likewise, if one examines the legitimacy then of kings, emperors and all the other monarchs, was it not a belief drenched and soaked in the fluidity of the notion that they were anointed by God and must be given the highest regard for they have been appointed to gain dominion over a certain land. Furthermore, who crowns these extensions of the divine? Was it not the popes from Rome?

One cannot help but think that to prevent questioning their legitimacy, religion is invoked to explain and justify.

As my mind sharpened, I began to be empiricist with my faith.

Am I to be blamed? I was trained to think scientifically and to be logical by the same Jesuit institution which conferred me my degree in nursing, although, they never made implicit to question Faith as it was beyond the realm of positivism.

Still, my destination toward agnosticism was furthered, as I entered the graduate school of the same Jesuit institution for the degree master of arts in sociology. This time, I have seen the fullest view of religion in the sociological and anthropologic context. Surrounded by the professors, whom I assumed shared the same thoughts with me on religion sociologists and anthropologists as they are; I have been condition to view religion as opium of the oppressed that functions to reduce anxiety.

Milbank: Climate-change deniers are in retreat

Posted on April 7, 2015 by ev1

There is no denying it: Climate-change deniers are in retreat.

What began as a subtle shift away from the claim that man-made global warming is not a threat to the planet has lately turned into a stampede. The latest attempt to deny denial comes from the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, a powerful group that pushes for states to pass laws that are often drafted by industry. As my Post colleagues Tom Hamburger, Joby Warrick and Chris Mooney report, ALEC is not only insisting that it doesnt deny climate change its threatening to sue those who suggest otherwise.

The group, which suffered the highly visible defection of Google because of its global-warming stance and an exodus of other top corporate members, sent letters to Common Cause and the League of Conservation Voters instructing them to remove all false or misleading material alleging ALEC questions global-warming theory.

The problem for ALEC is that as recently as 2013, it was still reaffirming model legislation calling on states to consider legitimate and scientifically defensible alternative hypotheses to the mainstream scientific positions on climate. The proposed legislation states that there is a great deal of scientific uncertainty about the matter and suggests states treat possible beneficial effects of carbon in an evenhanded manner.

The turnabout at ALEC follows an about-face at the Heartland Institute, a libertarian outfit that embraces a description of it as the worlds most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.

But on Christmas Eve, Justin Haskins, a blogger and editor at Heartland, penned an article for the conservative journal Human Events declaring: The real debate is not whether man is, in some way, contributing to climate change; its true that the science is settled on that point in favor of the alarmists.

Haskins called it a rather extreme position to say that we ought to allow dangerous pollutants to destroy the only planet we know of that can completely sustain human life, and he suggested work on technologies that can reduce CO2 emissions without destroying whole economies.

To be sure, this is a tactical retreat, and you shouldnt expect conservative groups to start lining up in favor of a carbon tax. Rather, theyre resorting to more defensible arguments that dont make them sound like flat-earthers. My Post colleagues quoted energy lobbyist Scott Segal saying that the science issue just isnt as salient as it once was. Instead, Segal talks about the cost and viability of proposed regulations.

Its likely no coincidence that the shift is occurring as the Obama administration approaches a June target to finalize rules on power-plant emissions. Those who oppose regulation are wise to abandon a position that holds little public appeal; a healthy majority of Americans accept that global warming is real, and a New York Times poll earlier this year found that even half of Republicans support government action to address it.

More and more conservative officeholders are embracing the I am not a scientist agnosticism on climate change rather than skepticism. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner and presidential candidates Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio have adopted this response, and Rubio has joined Mitt Romney and Chuck Grassley in embracing the less assailable position that U.S. efforts to restrict carbon are pointless without similar efforts across the globe.

Follow this link:
Milbank: Climate-change deniers are in retreat

Religion, Especially Islam, Is Growing Worldwide

Posted on April 4, 2015 by ev1

Religion By Will Hagle, Fri, April 3, 2015

A common assumption in Western nations is that religion is decreasing in popularity. There seems to be a trend towards atheism and agnosticism, an increasing acceptance of living a secular life. In the U.S., that assumption isnt necessarily wrong. According to The Telegraph, more than one-third of Americans aged 18 to 29 claim to have no religious affiliation. That statistic contrasts with the countrys eldest generation, of which less than 10 percent lacked a religious affiliation.

On a global scale, religion is growing in size. A recent Pew Research Center report found that nonreligious individuals will make up a declining share of the worlds population by 2050. The report does note that the religiously unaffiliated population will increase in number by that year, but the overall percentage will be lower than it is today, declining from an estimated 16 percent to 13 percent.

Among the major faiths, Islam is growing the fastest. According to the same projection by the Pew Research Center, the number of Muslims will nearly equal the number of Christians around the world by 2050. The trend also applies to the U.S., as Christians are expected to decline from three-quarters of the population to two-thirds, with Islam surpassing Judaism as the second most popular religion in the country. Christianity is currently the most popular religion, with 2.17 billion followers compared to 1.6 followers of Islam.

These numbers are estimates, but they take into account important factors like fertility and mortality rates, as well as the youth populations of religions and conversion rates. Pew claims developing countries with high birth rates and decreasing infant mortality rates are likely to raise larger populations of religious individuals. Relatively nonreligious nations, on the other hand, have low fertility and aging populations.

Although the Pew poll has been thoroughly researched and takes into account all of the aforementioned important factors, theres no way to predict whether or not the youthful populations born into a particular religion will actually grow up believing in or practicing that religion. By 2050, religion as we know it today might not be as strong. People could identify with one of the worlds major faiths, but it could be considered more of an ethnic identifier than an actual belief system.

Although the projection suggests otherwise, its hard to believe that religion will continue rising while secularism decreases. Science and technology are advancing at an exponential rate, and the world is only growing increasingly interconnected. In at least three countries covered by the Pew poll France, New Zealand and the Netherlands those without any religious affiliation are expected to take over Christians as the religious majority. Religion itself may be growing, but its not safe to say that religious belief will remain a lasting concept. If it is, the best the world can hope for is that tolerance increases as well.

Sources: Pew Research Center, CNN, The Telegraph

Image Credit: Pixabay

See more here:
Religion, Especially Islam, Is Growing Worldwide

Canada is not a Christian country

Posted on April 3, 2015 by ev1

In a letter to the editor (The NEWS,March 17) it was stated that Canada was a Christian nation. Canada is a democracy, and all forms of religion, including both atheism and agnosticism, can be freely practised here.

There are more than a dozen forms of Christian religion recognized in Canada. They include the Red Cross, which is known for providing aid to victims of natural or man-made disaster. Most groups have their own rites and dogmas, but all believe in a Creator with whom mankind has some type of relationship.

Science is based on facts and on occasions these contradict points of dogma. If the facts are sufficiently persuasive it is the dogma which has to change. For example, during the Middle Ages you could be burned alive for questioning any part of the Bible. Recently, the Pope indicated that the Catholic Church may be prepared to accept scientific explanations of both homosexuality and evolution.

There are two ongoing science studies which may bear on religious dogmas. The fossil record shows that evolution is a fact, but does not explain how life began. The indications are that the earliest life consisted of simple single-celled animals, and these are not preserved as fossils. Scientists already have data to show that these animals could have formed naturally, and in the near future may be able to produce synthetic forms of life.

Recent astronomical observations have determined that many stars have planets, and that at least some have Earth-like orbits and significant amounts of water. It follows that life probably developed quite widely in the universe.

There is a saying that there are no atheists in fox-holes. Scientists tend to feel the same way when they consider the awesome complexity of the Earth and of space. Science can generally analyze the how but never the why of natural phenomena. Such questions involve faith, and are best left to religions.

Jim Drummond Qualicum Beach

Agnosticism – Wikipedia

Posted on March 23, 2015 by ev1

Agnosticismul este concepia filozofic potrivit creia adevrul anumitor afirmaii, mai ales afirmaii teologice privind existena unui Dumnezeu sau a unor zei, este fie necunoscut, fie imposibil de aflat.

Termenul agnostic a fost creat de Thomas Henry Huxley n 1869 i este folosit i pentru descrierea celor neconvini de existena zeitilor sau altor aspecte religioase. Cuvntul agnostic provine din greac, compus din particula a (fr) i gnosis (cunoatere). Agnosticismul nu este doar contrar gnosticismului, ci tuturor dogmelor religioase, pe care le consider nedemonstrabile i prin urmare lipsite de orice certitudine.

Agnosticii pot afirma fie c nu este posibil s existe cunoatere spiritual, fie c ei, personal, nu dispun de o asemenea cunoatere. n ambele cazuri este expus scepticism fa de doctrinele religioase.

Atitudinea acelora care prefer s nu se pronune asupra problemelor care nu intr n cmpul datelor experienei.

Termenul a luat natere n ambientul pozitivismului.

Dei nu neag existena lui Dumnezeu, agnosticismul spune c Dumnezeu nu poate fi cunoscut, iar existena lui nu poate fi probat (demonstrat).

Susinut n forma lui cea mai rigid de Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) este i poziia mprtit de toi aceia care nici mai nainte n-au recunoscut posibilitatea de a ti dac Dumnezeu exist sau nu.

De exemplu, pentru Immanuel Kant Dumnezeu, sustras cunoaterii teoretice, rmne un postulat al raiunii practice; Friedrich Schleiermacher consider religia fondat pe sentiment; Carl Gustav Jung l vede pe Dumnezeu ca pe un produs al abisului incontient al eului.

Opunndu-se agnosticismului, n primul Conciliu din Vatican, Biserica Catolic a susinut c plecnd de la lucrurile create, Dumnezeu poate fi cunoscut cu certitudine prin lumina natural a minii. Aceast poziie pleac de la convingerea c inteligena uman este legitim deschis transcendenei i, prin urmare, este n msur s-l ntlneasc pe Dumnezeu n cercetarea Adevrului, cu condiia subneleas de a nu contrazice dogmele catolice i autoritatea Papei drept conductor unic al tuturor cretinilor.

Agnosticismul poate fi mprit n mai multe subcategorii, toate fiind categorisiri foarte recente. Printre variaii se numr:

Visit link:
Agnosticism - Wikipedia

Futurist Transhuman News Blog

Category Archives: Agnosticism