Belief, disbelief and non-belief.

Here's a different approach to the question of belief, based on the Buddhist concept that all human psychological suffering springs from attachment - from our attachments to people, things, ideas and our world view as a whole.

We all know that religious believers tend to attach themselves very strongly to their particular set of beliefs. That attachment has a number of effects we also recognize. The main one is that they tend to seek out and accept ideas that support their belief system and either avoid or strongly reject any ideas that call it into question. In science this behaviour is known as confirmation bias. Whenever the universe insists on presenting them with evidence that supports the opposite position they have to work very hard to defend their beliefs, on the understanding that their beliefs define who they are. To do this they may bend themselves into logical pretzels in an effort to reframe the evidence, attack the messenger, or deny the evidence altogether. This gives rise to the state known as cognitive dissonance, which is a main source of the suffering I mentioned above.

One of the ideas I've been playing with for the last few years is that all belief systems trigger these responses. In essence, all belief systems cause suffering.

Accepting this idea has some unexpected consequences, because it applies not just to the religious, but to all of us.

Everyone divides the universe of ideas into three parts: those that we accept, those that we might accept if they were justified under the same rules we apply to acceptable ideas, and those we reject. For instance, for many of us the first category might include things like the scientific method, the reality of the self and the material nature of the universe. The second category might include fringier topics like electron entanglement, telepathy and Zero Point Energy. The "reject" category might take in concepts like ancient astronauts, channeled writings, the power of intention - and God.

The stronger one's commitment is to a set of accepted beliefs, the smaller the second category tends to become, as items from it are deemed a priori to be unacceptable and are placed instead into the third, rejected set - which is in turn fenced off in uncompromising terms.

The problem with any belief system, however reasonable it seems to its adherents, is that it sets up the conditions for suffering: clinging to the good, rejecting the bad, and defining oneself in terms of that clinging and rejection. For example, we might be faced with an intransigent, proselytizing Christian fundamentalist who insists on engaging us in a dialog. Even on the Internet such exchanges can cause us to suffer, as our impatience, anger and outrage raises our blood pressure and cortisol levels, while the need to defend our world-view against such obvious ignorance causes us to cling ever tighter to our beliefs.

A wise friend once told me, "In an exchange, if you ever find yourself attacking, blaming or defending, you can take it for granted that your ego is running the show." The ego is all about attachment, so it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that it's a very short hop from attacking, blaming or defending to personal suffering.

The idea I'm playing with is that we may not need to believe everything we think. The decision to believe or disbelieve in any idea generally requires us to make a judgement on its "truth" of the idea. Aside from (or because of) the epistemological difficulties that can pose, we usually take the shortcut of determining whether the idea is congruent with our preexisting world-view. It's clear that making such a call automatically takes the result out of the realm of Truth.

What I'm playing with instead is not making that judgment. My decision is very simple: to stay open, let it all in and see what resonates, without collapsing into belief or disbelief about any of it. I'm trying to learn how to separate the idea of Value from the arbitrary box called Truth. All the stuff that was previously tossed straight into the hokum hamper now lands in a big heap on my living room floor. I sit with each new item asking myself not "Is this True?" but "What is its value to me?"

It can be a tough game to play, because it requires us to recognize that the self is not the set of beliefs the mind holds. The self it doesn't spring from them, and is definitely not identical to them. There is only one part of part of our mental structure that is a product of our beliefs, and that's our ego. Our personality - our Self - is far more than just that one element, but our cultural conditioning, whether religious or secular, makes that pretty hard to see.

It also helps to be able to embrace both sides of a paradox, an ability that may be fundamental to the development of wisdom. I find that I'm now comfortable with the idea that the universe is a purely material construct of matter and energy, as well as the idea that the universe is a living organism whose every particle participates in the unfolding of consciousness. While neither of these views can be proven "True", both of them have value to me. Dumb that duality down a bit, and it becomes the whole atheism/theism dichotomy - to which I now apply the same rules.

It may be hard to see the value in such an approach. After all, it leads to the benign examination of ideas about astral planes, Akashic records and astrology as well as ideas about jet planes, computer data records and astronomy. However I've found that I can think about the first set without having to believe in them, and I can think about the second group without clinging to their truth either. The result has been less angst, anger, rejection and inner turmoil - in short, less psychological suffering.

Buddha may have been right about that whole attachment thing.

I'm glad that you can at least admit you're playing a game.

Or perhaps a a sense of healthy entitlement: "I have value to myself and the world. I feel that my views are legitimate and thus may be of value to others. I have enough self-confidence to admit that the views of others are equally as valuable to them as mine are to me. I am entitled to adopt the views of others if they add value to my own."

It only becomes arrogance if one rejects the views of others out of hand, or denies the value they have to those who hold them.

For a "wise friend" your advisor painted himself, and you if you took that advice, into a silly corner for a start. In a discussion on any even slightly controversial topic, if you are neither attacking nor defending claims, you are offering nothing of value. "Hmm I can see both sides here" is vapid smalltalk, not wisdom.

That said, while it's certainly good to expand the "possible if you show me evidence" to the extent of reason, it is at best a waste of time, at most likely a stultifying bromide that will leave you mentally hogtied, and at worst fatal to extend it beyond reason. Like most atheists (you posted this in this group for a reason I assume) I happily place most sophisticated god-claims in this bucket. I can and do however reject some god-claims without any fear of "suffering". A common example is the triple omni god. A god that is all powerful, all knowing and all loving is incompatible with the evidence we all agree on. Any number of things from tooth decay on up make that idea easily rejectable.

And it's certainly ok to say "I'll accept Akashic writings if theyy present evidence that stands up to scrutiny". Heck that's my stance. But it just took longer to type than the consideration of the idea is worth. I'll give it more bandwidth if and when credible evidence is offered, but it's neither attachment nor suffering to continue living and considering reality without giving a moment's reflection to the likelihood of it being true. Why waste the time now before the evidence? Again - that's where most atheists are with god clsims.

The amount of consideration woth giving to a claim is in direct proportion to how likely it is given what we already know and understand. A claim that the oceans are the tears of The Old Ones may be true, but is both so improbable and so devoid of evidence that it's useless to me. If somebody presented me with proof The Old Ones exist and a list of things demonstrated to have made them cry then I'll care. But a claim that the ocean could be haarvested of trace metals useful in creating the next ggeneration of battery for electric vehicles may NOT be true, but since we already know we can get metals out of seawater, and since we already know EV technology is held back by the storage capacity of metals in the battery and would catch on much more quickly with extended range and faster charging, the claim is worth much more honest investigation, much more careful consideration, and much more initial rspect than the earlier claim.

Do you want to spend decades navel-gazing about the lamentation of the elder gods, or looking for the 500 mile 30 minute recharge EV battery:? Which way reduces psychological suffering?

My interest in the truth of a proposition is rapidly dimishing as I move toward an epistomologically agnostic attitude towards the whole notion of knowledge.

"I can see both sides" might be vapid conversation. However, saying something like "That's an interesting view. What happens if we look at it a different way?" may not be quite so squishy. It's entirely possible to explore an idea without attacking the other side or defending your own. That way you don't fall into the trap of trying to claim your views as True and the opposing view as False. True and False belong to the realm of belief rather than value. Defense and attack do nothing to enhance the validity of a claim, they just enhance the ego's claim to superior knowledge, intelligence, judgment, and discrimination. I find it much easier to take in new ideas if I don't attach myself irrevocably to one side of an argument by claiming the high ground of Truth.

Evidence is very important if your goal is to justify and defend your belief. If you don't believe something (either because you disbelieve it or because of the simple absence of belief or disbelief, evidence is inconseqential.

When I'm presented with a claim - whether it's "We've discovered a tachyonic particle at CERN" or "I've captured the image of a UFO on this video" - it's not the claim itself that's interesting. Rather it's what the overt or implied belief set tells me about the claimant, or about the nature of belief in general. I have no way of knowing if either of those claims are objectively true, but what's fascinating to me is, if they were true, what that might imply about belief sets that rely on the Newton/Einstein materiality of the universe in the first case or the the apotheosis of human reason in the second.

For instance my beliefs for the first 57 years of my life included:

1. There is no God.
2. The universe is a material environment, whose behaviour is ultimately reducible to physical laws."

Over the last few years those beliefs have morphed into the following positions:

1. I have no way of knowing if there is a God or not. I find the idea that an Abrahamic God might exist to be antithetical to my view of reality. I choose to behave personally as if there is no God. However, I understand that many people find great value in such a belief (and some of them act in accordance with that belief). When speaking to them I try to remain mindful of the fact that all personal beliefs are to a large extent irrational, and little is to be gained by attacking them. If he tries to persuade me to believe in such a God and I don't defend an opposite position, that doesn't mean that I am acquiescing to his belief system or validating it in any way. I have my own views, after all - views that are not influenced one iota by anyone else's - unless I choose to let them.

2. I have no way of knowing if the universe is purely material or not, because of the nature of my physical senses. Viewing the universe as purely material is useful if one is doing science or engineering. However, not all of my experience is bound up with science and engineering. Much of my inner life is more fluid than that, animated by values rather than laws. The idea that the universe is a conscious place, and that my consciousness participates in it, has value to me. It has value because it helps me recognize the inherent interconnectedness of all things, and honour the mystery of consciousness wherever I find it - which in turn are views that are very important to me. In the presence of that idea of a conscious universe I feel more humble, whole and at home in the world. Does this mean I believe the universe is "really" such a conscious place? No. does it mean I believe the universe is "purely" material? Again, no. Both ideas have value, but neither need to be believed in order to acquire that value.

To me, this is the fundamental gift of agnosticism - it keeps us from collapsing into belief - or disbelief, which is the same thing viewed from the other side of the dualist fence.

Agnosticism tells us nothing about whether you believe any gods exist. It merely says we cannot know by means of mystically revealed certainty. Agnostics can be theistic or atheistic. Heck agnostics MUST be theistic or atheistic, since atheism is simplu the lack of theism.

You are arguing two different things here. Your initial post pointed out clearly that there are three possibilties, but here you have conflated two and made belief dualist.

As you said, you can believe something, you can hold it as possible but needing evidence to establish its truth, ot you can believe something to be wrong. The middle position is however not synonymous with agnosticism, which concerns knowledge. Applied to the question of gods it becomes:

I believe in a god or gods. I have theistic beliefs. I am a theist.

I am awaiting evidence before I believe. I lack theistic beliefs. I am a weak/implicit atheist

I believe in the absence of gods. I not lack theistic beliefs - I consider it impossible that they may be true. I am a strong/explicit atheist.




I think it is impossible to know through revelation or personally subjective certainty, but I personally believe in a god or gods. I am an agnostic theist.

I think it is impossible to know through revelation or personally subjective certainty, but I personally do not believe in a god or gods. I am an agnostic atheist.

I think it is possible to know through revelation or personally subjective certainty, and I personally believe in a god or gods. I am a gnostic theist (different from a big G sectarian Gnostic).

I think it is possible to know through revelation or personally subjective certainty, and I personally do not believe in a god or gods. I am a gnostic atheist

The latter 4 add information to the former 3. They do not add another possible option to that first set. The difference between a weak and strong atheist is however quite often the lack of agnosticism in practice. It is not logically possible to be an agnostic stong atheist, as we all lack universal knowledge, and lacking that, the only way to conclude no gods can possibly exist is by subjective personal certainty.

Another important point is that people often think atheism and even agnosticism refer to specific god claims - in the US of course mostly the God of Christians. They are of course statements about all gods in the case of atheism, and all knowledge in the case of agnosticism. It is very possible to be a weak atheist, agnostic or gnostic, and to reject out of hand, and accurately, impossible claims of specific gods. For instance while I am open to evidence about gods, I can definitively declare that there are no married bachelor gods, or no rectangular circular gods, or the triple-omni god mentioned above.

My starting position is that there is an epistemological problem with all knowledge - complete certainty is impossible about anything.

I tend to see belief/disbelief as two sides of the same coin, as positions stemming from personal certainty where none can logically exist. From that point of view, non-belief seems to be just the recognition of the basic problem with knowledge. In the absence of certain knowledge, of course, belief is all we have - and most people have no problem with that. I do see a problem with that, as I outlined in my original post - it leads to suffering because we attach our sense of Self to an inherently unprovable idea, then feel compelled to defend it lest through its defeat we lose some sense of our Self.

I've found that it's more profitable for me to simply forego belief altogether, accept the epistemological barrier to certainty, and realize that for me defending a belief of any sort seems a rather pointless task.

Regarding the scale of gnosticism and theism you posted (which I agree with) I would say that "I think it is impossible to know, and I do not believe or disbelieve in any gods." That might make me an agnostic apatheist.

I don't care if any gods exist or not, but I do care very much about the ideas that spring up around gods, and how they influence human behaviour. To that end I have experimented with belief about various gods within various traditions for short periods of time. The traditions included Christian, Islamic, Judaic, Hindu, Aboriginal, Wiccan and animist (I'd include Taoism, Buddhism and Advaita, but those traditions don't have gods so don't factor into this discussion). Essentially I became a tourist in those lands, living there long enough to pick up a flavour of the culture and decide if I wanted to take any souvenirs home. I found that very useful, though the only real souvenirs I brought back were from a collision of animism with Deep Ecology, and a taste of the Beloved from Sufi.

So here I am, home again, but it's a very different place than the one I left. I feel like a tourist who has lived all their life with the idea that their native land was the greatest place in the world, the one everyone ought to aspire to. Then after some serious time abroad they come home with a fresh insight into the fact that whatever one believes (or disbelieves) ain't necessarily so.

that if you were deprived of oxygen for 30 minutes, you would die.

Are you uncertain about that? Does it indicate immaturity to be certain about it?

First of all, there are plenty of verified incidents where people were deprived of oxygen and even blood circulation for longer than 30 minutes and survived.

For example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1310809/Lazarus-toddler-heart-stopped-hour-amazes-medics-making-recovery.html

Second, (to turn from the physical to the philosophical) what does "you" mean in the phrase "you would die"? There is a great deal that's unknown about the fundamental nature of consciousness and personality. Add to that the fact that we can know nothing about what happens or doesn't happen to consciousness and personality after death - it's one of the things I'm most agnostic about. Maybe "I" cease, maybe "I" don't. To choose one or the other is a matter of belief. We can say for sure that the body ceases to function, but is my body "me"? I'm not sure - maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I will find out, or not, in due course. Until then I'm content to hold both possibilities open - they both have personal value for me here and now.

I figured you'd look for wiggle room.

My second demurral still stands. Is my body "me"? I'm still agnostic on that.

That cannot be.

Certainty may be possible, or it may not be - it seems to depend on how tightly the boundaries and assumptions of any given situation are drawn. I tend to adopt whatever position seems most useful a given situation. I could adopt a general position of relative certainty, if that would help. :-)

Have fun with your mental masturb games!

I can simply say, "Here is a set of assumptions. I will accept those as the given framework of reality for this purpose and create laws that are consistent with them." Which, when you come to think of it, is what we do as a culture anyway. It's just that many of our assumptions are unspoken, and so take on the appearance of natural law, Fact or Truth. Of course assumptions can be treated as concrete facts so long as they're widely accepted, which is what makes laws and government (not to mention culture itself) possible.

It's of course entirely possible to create laws and governments around very different sets of assumptions. The Hindu concept of karma and reincarnation made its way into laws and conventions governing caste, and pre-Chinese Tibetan system probably have carried some acknowledgment of the assumptions around the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama.

All that is required for laws or government is that the majority of people share the underlying assumptions, and that those who don't at least agree to abide by them.

My desire to remain agnostic about all knowledge is purely personal. I think it has profound psychological effects that might interest others, but I have zero desire to recruit people to it.

By the way, I want to thank you for keeping the conversation alive and giving me the continuing opportunity to explore this topic. It's much appreciated.

Anytime! :hi:

Be forewarned, though. I tend to be a wriggly, game-playing bastard who doesn't believe in anything and thinks that masturbation is simply having sex with the person I love the most. You have to ask yourself if hanging out with people like that is going to advance your cause. (BTW, what is your cause here?)