Hello,
I was never taught to believe gods exist, or to believe they don't, growing up. As a teenager, I came across the writings of T. H. Huxley, and found the label for what I was, an agnostic. And, yes, that covers beliefs.
Huxley was a scientist, above all else. He saw the scientific method in picking apples at the market. The agnosticism he defined amounted to a form of demarcation. No objective testable evidence = a subjective unfalsifiable claim. Results: unscientific and inconclusive. No belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim. It is not compatible with athe-ism, the belief gods do not exist, or the-ism, the belief gods do exist.
He outright called it "immoral" to form beliefs about objective truth claims, with no supporting objective evidence.
I label myself solely on a fairly abstract concept of "god" beings, the same way I'm agnostic about the existence of "alien" beings. Yes, a Superman comic appears to mainly be a work of fiction, and isn't evidence for the existence of "alien" beings. I'd more than happily argue against having "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" dictated as moral law. I wouldn't like to see people threatened with eternity in the Phantom Zone, in an attempt to scare them into believing in Superman or following that moral law. I wouldn't like to see The Adventures of Superman taught in school as fact. I wouldn't like to see Supermanists dictating who we can and can't marry, or have sex with. Etc.
However, a Superman comic also isn't evidence for the non-existence of "alien" beings. Even pulling out thousands or millions of sci-fi "alien" beings and showing them all to be fiction, will never have addressed whether, or not, "alien" beings actually exist. And, I'm sure not going to bother labelling myself over every different sci-fi "alien", just the single bare bones fairly abstract concept behind all the stories.
Thanks for having me.
I was never taught to believe gods exist, or to believe they don't, growing up. As a teenager, I came across the writings of T. H. Huxley, and found the label for what I was, an agnostic. And, yes, that covers beliefs.
Huxley was a scientist, above all else. He saw the scientific method in picking apples at the market. The agnosticism he defined amounted to a form of demarcation. No objective testable evidence = a subjective unfalsifiable claim. Results: unscientific and inconclusive. No belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim. It is not compatible with athe-ism, the belief gods do not exist, or the-ism, the belief gods do exist.
Quote:"I say, strive earnestly to learn something, not only of the results, but of the methods of science, and then apply those methods to all statements which offer themselves for your belief. If they will not stand that test, they are nought, let them come with what authority they may."
Quote:"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."
He outright called it "immoral" to form beliefs about objective truth claims, with no supporting objective evidence.
Quote:"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions."
Quote:"I trust that I have now made amends for any ambiguity, or want of fulness, in my previous exposition of that which I hold to be the essence of the Agnostic doctrine. Henceforward, I might hope to hear no more of the assertion that we are necessarily Materialists, Idealists, Atheists, Theists, or any other ists, if experience had led me to think that the proved falsity of a statement was any guarantee against its repetition. And those who appreciate the nature of our position will see, at once, that when Ecclesiasticism declares that we ought to believe this, that, and the other, and are very wicked if we don't, it is impossible for us to give any answer but this: We have not the slightest objection to believe anything you like, if you will give us good grounds for belief; but, if you cannot, we must respectfully refuse, even if that refusal should wreck morality and insure our own damnation several times over. We are quite content to leave that to the decision of the future. The course of the past has impressed us with the firm conviction that no good ever comes of falsehood, and we feel warranted in refusing even to experiment in that direction."
I label myself solely on a fairly abstract concept of "god" beings, the same way I'm agnostic about the existence of "alien" beings. Yes, a Superman comic appears to mainly be a work of fiction, and isn't evidence for the existence of "alien" beings. I'd more than happily argue against having "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" dictated as moral law. I wouldn't like to see people threatened with eternity in the Phantom Zone, in an attempt to scare them into believing in Superman or following that moral law. I wouldn't like to see The Adventures of Superman taught in school as fact. I wouldn't like to see Supermanists dictating who we can and can't marry, or have sex with. Etc.
However, a Superman comic also isn't evidence for the non-existence of "alien" beings. Even pulling out thousands or millions of sci-fi "alien" beings and showing them all to be fiction, will never have addressed whether, or not, "alien" beings actually exist. And, I'm sure not going to bother labelling myself over every different sci-fi "alien", just the single bare bones fairly abstract concept behind all the stories.
Thanks for having me.
