Templeton Foundation sides with Agnostics


Recommended Posts

I'm reporting this, not because it is important, but because it's funny.  At least, I think it's funny.  The Templeton Foundation has chosen to side with Agnostics -- over Atheists.  Yes.  The great war of words between the Agnostics and Atheists, has heated up.  Templeton has taken sides.     :birgits_giggle:  The author of this article, looks to be an irritated Atheist.     :rolleyes:

 

Now, there's money involved.  Let the good times roll.

 

Enjoy.     :coffee:

 

 

 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2019/06/fence-sitting-agnostics/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Nonreligious&utm_content=44

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

I really do not like the expression "sitting on the fence" when it comes to agnosticism.  I feel it's more like being open to new evidence rather than shutting the door on things. It's an honest position that one can be wrong despite the huge evidence that God cannot be proved and Is not likely to be proved as things stand in this life.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Pete said:

I really do not like the expression "sitting on the fence" when it comes to agnosticism.  I feel it's more like being open to new evidence rather than shutting the door on things. It's an honest position that one can be wrong despite the huge evidence that God cannot be proved and Is not likely to be proved as things stand in this life.

 

Sitting on the fence misrepresents Agnosticism.  It suggests giving equal weight to God's existence and non-existence.  No.  The Agnostic is still free to weigh the (non-existent) evidence, and draw a conclusion based on probability.  There is a simple word for this.  Doubt.  I know.  It's a nuance.  I think the distinction is important.

 

Of course, a sense of humor counts for something.  In one of his videos, Mr. Deity/Dalton commented on Agnostics sitting on the fence.  He said -- "You could totally lose a nut that way."  Of course, Dalton is one of the harsher Atheists on You Tube.  A true Antitheist and no friend to Agnostics.

 

I also think this war of words -- of which Templeton has foolishly taken sides -- has grown quite pointless.  This war of words has nothing to do with anyone's state of non-belief.  Only which label they use.

 

I still prefer Apatheism, because the argument is more trouble than it's worth.  Even better -- I like Secular as a label.  Of course, Free Thinker is still available.  Perhaps, you remember when Dan said that he was a Free Thinker?  Life can be hilarious.     :rofl:

 

:birgits_giggle:   :coffee:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Sitting on the fence misrepresents Agnosticis. Even better -- I like Secular as a label.  Of course, Free Thinker is still available.  Perhaps, you remember when Dan said that he was a Free Thinker?  Life can be hilarious.     :rofl:

 

:birgits_giggle:   :coffee:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I totally agree. One does not conduct science believing in only one conclusion. One approaches it being open to the findings. I cannot see any reason to believe in an all seeing or caring deity but maybe its possible even though it's very very unlikely that there is one. According to science.  It is science that is the key here and a God lies in the area of unlikely,  unproven,  and no evidence for such a deity. 

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Pete said:

I totally agree. One does not conduct science believing in only one conclusion. One approaches it being open to the findings. I cannot see any reason to believe in an all seeing or caring deity but maybe its possible even though it's very very unlikely that there is one. According to science.  It is science that is the key here and a God lies in the area of unlikely,  unproven,  and no evidence for such a deity. 

 

 

Questions about God's existence, tend to follow assumptions about God.  That is, the God of the Bible.  All Knowing; All Good; All Powerful: Present in all times and places.  Of course, the logical impossibilities are built in.  These properties are mutually exclusive.  Take away or modify any of these assumptions -- and we can't even continue the conversation.  Over time, I have stopped asking for a working definition of God.  It's hopeless.  Without a working definition of God -- what are we even talking about?  That is, if we are talking about the God of the Bible.

 

If we expand our horizons to bring in other models for God -- Pantheism or Deism -- things get even murkier.  We haven't even mentioned Polytheism.  Or Hinduism, which is different.  Not confusing enough yet?  There is always the wide eyed mystic, who tells us that God is beyond definition.  The ultimate mystery.  Is that what things boil down to?  The Ultimate mystery?  Or -- God is Love.  The word -- God -- has no objective meaning.

 

This is a good time for me to make an observation.  I've spoken to a lot of Atheists over the years.  They can't agree on a definition, for the God, that they don't believe in.  Which puts the default definition, in the hands of believers.  Largely because believers are the ones who care enough, to keep the arguments going.  I think this is self evident.

 

Now, along comes the Templeton Foundation.  They've taken sides.  They have decided that the Agnostics have it right.

 

So, a very brief look at both basic positions.

 

Agnostic:  Nobody knows anything about God.  Neither God's existence nor non-existence is knowable.  In case it still needs saying -- this has nothing to do with riding the fence.  

 

I can't argue with that.  We have no objective, verifiable information about God.  Nothing at all.

 

Atheist:  I don't believe.

 

That's all that is.  If we don't have an affirmative belief that God exists -- the default position is Atheism.

 

This is the great battle -- :sigh2: -- that Templeton has chosen to leap into.  A true tempest in a teapot.  Of course, they have chosen to ignore --

 

Agnostic Atheist:  Which is -- I don't know and I don't believe.  Because without objective, verifiable information, we don't know and belief is silly.

 

All of which ignores -- I don't care.  Because, damn.  It's all so silly.  Arguing about the label -- which is about the word used --to convey the exact nuance --  of non-belief.  Well, if Templeton wants to throw their money around -- taking sides in a war of words that doesn't matter -- they are free to do so.  And I'm free to laugh at them.  The humor is wearing thin.

 

:whist:

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl
Link to comment

All I can say that in my own journey the movement from liberal Christian to agnostic is not sitting on the fence. It was a big leap and a challenge to all I stood on before. It ain't sitting on the fence . It's a position I stand on and defend. Whether it be atheist or believer. That is not sitting on any fence. In my book and like you I do not care what others think about my position. That fence is a wall against all sides except science.

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Pete said:

All I can say that in my own journey the movement from liberal Christian to agnostic is not sitting on the fence. It was a big leap and a challenge to all I stood on before. It ain't sitting on the fence . It's a position I stand on and defend. Whether it be atheist or believer. That is not sitting on any fence. In my book and like you I do not care what others think about my position. That fence is a wall against all sides except science.

 

 

 

Yes.  The line that always gets me -- even now -- is -- Prove my God doesn't exist.  This usually leads to an argument, about, who has the burden of proof.  They want us to prove that their invisible friend isn't real.  There was a time, when I would have joined the argument.  I'm not as nice as I used to be.  Now, I'm more inclined to say, Grow up.  

 

 

Link to comment

They are the ones arguing there God is real therefore it's for them to prove that. I am not arguing because I do not see there is evidence for a God. I cannot provide evidence for an provable God therefore it's back to them. I can judge any evidence they supply as credible or not. For me it would have to be provable by logic or science, or empirical evidence. 

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Pete said:

They are the ones arguing there God is real therefore it's for them to prove that. I am not arguing because I do not see there is evidence for a God. I cannot provide evidence for an provable God therefore it's back to them. I can judge any evidence they supply as credible or not. For me it would have to be provable by logic or science, or empirical evidence. 

 

 

All of which brings us to Apologetics.  The same tired arguments, yet again, as though for the first time.  No evidence at all.  Nothing.  

 

I have no issue with the beliefs of others.  I need more, than what is available.  

:whist:

 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.