Yes. This. I finally know what check-box to check. Sharing because I just found it so I figure there might be others in the same boat. I highly recommend watching the video at the link; not only is it informative, but David Eagleman is a very entertaining speaker.
From the link:
Possibilianism is a philosophy which rejects both the idiosyncratic claims of traditional theism and the positions of certainty in atheism in favor of a middle, exploratory ground. The term was first defined by neuroscientist David Eagleman in relation to his book of fiction Sum. Asked whether he was an atheist or a religious person on a National Public Radio interview in February, 2009, he replied "I call myself a Possibilian: I'm open to ideas that we don't have any way of testing right now." In a subsequent interview with the New York Times, Eagleman expanded on the definition:
"Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position — one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."
An adherent of possibilianism is called a possibilian. The possibilian perspective is distinguished from agnosticism in that it consists of an active exploration of novel possibilities and an emphasis on the necessity of holding multiple positions at once if there is no available data to privilege one over the others. Possibilianism reflects the scientific temperament of creativity, testing, and tolerance for multiple ideas.
#religion #religiousbelief #religiousdiscussion #possibilian #possibilianism ?
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
=) sounds legit
Fascinating the human desire to define the undefinable. Like an Anarchist Society's membership dues…
adding to my lexicon. =]
+Tony Annechino He covers that in the video; as I said, quite entertaining.
I quite like this
Nice, that sounds like me. I classify myself as an atheist usually, but I'm not hard-nosed about it. So usually Pastafarianism gets the nod, cause I'm a dork.
+Nigel Swan Dorkism 😀
Seems legit.
I would argue that "possibilianism" is really just hard agnosticism, but I guess most people think agnosticism is just questioning one of the given faiths as opposed to having no actual position (since most "agnostics" are agnostic (a)theist anyway).
I do believe that everyone cannot be right, but I also don't believe that everyone is wrong. So to say that anything is possible is fine, but if there is a religion that happens to be true, and if there really is a God who made us, if we are responsible to Him for our actions, and we really are doomed to hell, then it doesn't make sense to go through life and hope for the best at the end of it.
I encourage you all to not just be open to the possibilities, but to sincerely, earnestly search for the truth. You'll learn a lot along the way and possibly find the truth. Let me add that Jesus has already claimed that He is "the way, the truth, and the life." So it makes sense to start by studying His claims for yourself. I care about you all and according to my belief there is no hope for anyone outside of Christ. Bear in mind that Christianity as it is widely known (the Roman Catholic Church) is not true Christianity, but rather a counterfeit that confuses the masses. No pun.
So friends, I hope you do remain open to the "possibilities" and study them.
I don't see any actual justification for any of this. Specifically "our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism"
+Rydal Shrivnauth You do know that every other religion on this planet also believes they are the one true path, right? Saying that all other religions are counterfeit and trying to confuse the masses is the exact same way every other religion proselytizes.
Sounds a lot like agnostic to me though. I would not remain an atheist if any real viable evidence was given to me to support creation by any deity .. but I think this is am interesting read, thanks.
+Sara Harry Hinduism teaches that no matter what you do, you come back again.
Islam teaches that you must do the five pillars of Islam and still don't know what happens after you die. Many religions say they are the one true way, but do you know which leader rose from the dead? You may not believe it, yet if you're an evolutionist/atheist, you believe that life spontaneously appeared. That's way more faith then I have.
+Rydal Shrivnauth but if you also believe the bible to be true that's way way more faith to believe those crazy tales. Really.
>which leader rose from the dead
>says an ancient, multiply translated and doctored book
While Christianity as a whole can't be entirely discredited by a few inconsistencies, you have to realize that your argument is sitting on the assumption that we believe the bible is true. Let's not have this argument. It's been played out a million times over with nothing to show for it.
Interesting concept. Reshared.
+PiMaster PI The Bible (best preserved book over millenniums) is not the only historical evidence for it. I don't assume you believe the Bible is true, but if you're an Atheist, I am convinced that you know your belief is wrong. However I totally agree with you in that I don't want to argue.
From the link in the original post:
Kevin Kelly on Possibilianism
Read technologist Kevin Kelly writing about the difference between agnosticism and possibilianism.
An excerpt:
Agnostics end with the lack of an answer. Possibilians begin with the lack of an answer. Agnostics say, we can't decide between this and that. Possibilians say, there are other choices than this or that. Agnostics say, I Don't Know, it's impossible to answer that question. Possibilians say, I Don't Know, there must be better questions.
+Rydal Shrivnauth I'm a hard agnostic. All beliefs are in all likelihood at least partially wrong, and you can't know to begin with because the concept of knowledge is itself illusory.
+PiMaster PI ok then. good luck knowing that you can't know anything.
+Rydal Shrivnauth boy you get kinda nasty when confronted with different thoughts/opinions. Good luck with THAT. You are making the same claim as anyone else. Unless you eyewitness your lord savior or were pent during the bible times, you really have the same damn claim as anyone else .. you think strongly, you don't KNOW. If you are looking to change people's mind, don't be so smug and full of yourself. Show others in a way that makes them look art you and say "hey, I like that. Where can I get that?" Pffff.
I prefer the term "positive agnosticism," as opposed to the fatalism of "negative agnosticism."
I go with the One True Faith Catholic. Not to be confused with the Vatican II sect, a demonic counterfeit.
The best source I've found is at vaticancatholic.com
Give that a look and test your selves many others with similar wanderings have and now have the hope of salvation.
Sounds like a form of Pascal's wager. They can't bring themselves to reject magi and invisible friendsc, just in case.
Possibilian sounds like a race of space aliens.
+Louis Cohen Some of my best friendsc are invisible.
Agnosticism, being the mental illness of this age, just got worse. 🙂
+Dimitrios Trimijopulos Welcome to agnosticism. Dont be so hard on yourself. There's always hope for a cure. I think it's called faith.
Douchey mincing mitigation. Congrats on reinventing the agnostic wheel.
+William Hilton
+Dimitrios Trimijopulos Welcome to agnosticism. Dont be so hard on yourself. There's always hope for a cure. I think it's called faith.
Where I come from it is called ????? 🙂
I am an adherent of Euhemerism, if you happen to know this ancient heresy of atheism.
Are people also "possibilians" on the invisible monster living under their daughter's bed then? You know, the one that you've taken a flashlight to search for countless times to show her it isn't there after she had woken you up to insist it had given her a nightmare; the one that's supposedly been responsible for leaving doors open when they should've been closed or for causing floorboards to creak or for misplacing her homework; the same one who she later began to think might actually just be a socially awkward little creature just like her prepubescent self who perhaps didn't know how to express its good intentions well; the one whom she eventually outgrew and never thought about anymore?
I'm atheistic about that invisible monster because every reasonable effort to find solid evidence of it has yielded no result. Yes, I hold an atheistic position on it – I DON'T BELIEVE it exists, not that I KNOW it doesn't exist. That means I'm always open to considering evidence of it, if any can be found.
I hold the exact same position towards other ideas for which good evidence is similarly lacking: fairies, elves, Santa, Nessie, etc.
I don't understand why we need to introduce new ways of categorizing ourselves with regard to things we don't have a positive-belief relation with.
+Marcus Lee
I DON'T BELIEVE it exists, not that I KNOW it doesn't exist. That means I'm always open to considering evidence of it, if any can be found.
To be agnostic as regards the particulars of the universe, for example, it is reasonable.
To be agnostic as regards the objective reality of human concepts irrespective of whether, firstly: they have been conceived by scientists, theologians, idiots, or lunatics and secondly: irrespective of whether they are true concepts or ideas produced by chance, misunderstanding or a wish to deceive, is just laughable and ridiculous.
+Dimitrios Trimijopulos
I don't disagree with you.
I'd like to highlight that my example, "the monster under the bed", is just an illustration of my broader point.
May I also propose that in some cases, knowing with 100% accuracy what the source ("scientists, theologians, idiots, or lunatics") or purpose ("chance, misunderstanding or a wish to deceive") is of a given concept isn't easy to achieve for some people in certain situations, so perhaps agnosticism isn't unreasonable then. But it is probably always more honest than dead-on certainty either way, which may be an appealing thing in and of itself.
Well…..this went downhill quickly. Smh
+Scott Cramer thank you for this.
Although I think humanity with it's incessant need to categorize everything to bring people together,only succeeds in dividing us even more, a more optimistic outlook never hurt anyone.
And as you can see above, optimism and an open thought pattern are in short supply.
And on a snarky note, +Rydal Shrivnauth read up on the Egyptian god Horus.
Might find that story vaguely familiar.
+Marcus Lee
May I also propose that in some cases, knowing with 100% accuracy what the source ("scientists, theologians, idiots, or lunatics") or purpose ("chance, misunderstanding or a wish to deceive") is of a given concept isn't easy to achieve for some people in certain situations, so perhaps agnosticism isn't unreasonable then. But it is probably always more honest than dead-on certainty either way, which may be an appealing thing in and of itself.
We are not dealing with some cases here but with a concept that is insulting to human dignity and deserves to be researched to the point that one may say “the proposal is false. Period”.
If one feels that the concept of God is not ridiculous and absurd enough to insult the human intellect, then one does not research and hides his head in the sand, as the agnostics do.
Discourse and different points of view are good things in society. However, please be respectful.
From this point forward, any disrespectful comments will be deleted. It's okay to have opinions. It's not okay – in my opinion – to start throwing out personal comments. "Agree to disagree" and "I do not agree with you" are perfectly acceptable phrases.
Oy… I thought for sure this post would be met with more positivity than it is +Scott Cramer and both sides of the coin are actively imbroiled. It's a great concept.
+Carrie Canup Yes, I wondered what would happen also. I guess that's why you and I also embrace this concept, eh? 🙂
People, not thelogy, make me groan.
+Dimitrios Trimijopulos Fair enough. What you said does mirror some of my own thoughts that arose along my progression from theism to atheism.
Unfortunately there will always be people who are comfortable with a fluid and hazy definition of what "God" is as a concept that they will never reach a point where they will need to confront it – even mentally – as a tangible enough object that should be addressed. And thus there will always be fence-sitters.
+Marcus Lee
+Dimitrios Trimijopulos Fair enough. What you said does mirror some of my own thoughts that arose along my progression from theism to atheism.
I have to say that I respect you for that. I was never a believer and thus I do admire people who managed to shake off all the indoctrination by themselves.
Unfortunately there will always be people who are comfortable with a fluid and hazy definition of what "God" is as a concept that they will never reach a point where they will need to confront it – even mentally – as a tangible enough object that should be addressed. And thus there will always be fence-sitters.
That is true, and it is my opinion that this is the reason that the true history of religion is taught in no university at all. Both science and religion are better off with the fence-sitters.
I’ll explain what I mean.
Just a few days ago someone was constantly pressing me to provide an atheistic syllogism of mine and eventually I presented the following:
Fact 1: (you may call it a proposition if you so prefer) All ancient people, all over the world, were aware of the existence of messengers of the gods.
Fact 2: The ancient people believed that the messengers of the gods were gods themselves.
Fact 3: The messengers of the gods (representatives of the gods, priests) are real people.
Conclusion: The ancient people believed that the gods were real people!
The ancient people actually regarded the gods common people (the ruling class) but apart from individual researchers (who usually end up with involving the aliens) no official institution dared investigate this subject. The reason is obvious: if it is proven that the gods of the ancients were real people, the ancients are the smart guys (as they never believed in supernatural heavenly gods prior to the appearance of the messengers of the gods) and we, the moderns with the internet and all the information at our disposal, are the idiots. 🙂
+Scott Cramer sorry, man. mute.
Wow…. +Scott Cramer it may be time to disable comments
Agnosticism just seems more and more like a cop out to me. Ok, sure it's technically correct…in the same way that you are "agnostic" about smurfs or fairies. But nobody really says this because in fact it's not that they withhold judgment – in practice they actually disbelieve in these things until proven otherwise. And I think the same is warranted for fantastical theological claims.
+Dimitrios Trimijopulos I looked up Euhemerism. I thought I knew all the Greek philosophers, from Attaboy to Zeno, but evidently Euhemerus escaped my attention. His view seems perfectly sensible to me, but I'm at a loss as to why you call this view a heresy of atheism; though I do agree that orthodox atheism is a negativistic religion.
This looks too much like a spoiler vote to me.
Atheists don't positively disbelieve in gods, we just don't have good enough evidence to believe in any god. I'm pretty sure the "hard-nosed" atheists are all open to the possibility of something that could be called a god, we just see no use believing without evidence.
Methinks if you feel you need a new category to describe yourself, you don't understand what atheism is.
+Carrie Canup Naw, I think folks are playing nice. It's beyond the conversation I have time to delve into, but I do not see any fisticuffs. 😉
Methinks religious people derive psychological benefits from their beliefs, such that evidence, in the atheistic definition, is a moot point.
+William Hilton
+Dimitrios Trimijopulos I looked up Euhemerism. I thought I knew all the Greek philosophers, from Attaboy to Zeno, but evidently Euhemerus escaped my attention. His view seems perfectly sensible to me, but I'm at a loss as to why you call this view a heresy of atheism; though I do agree that orthodox atheism is a negativistic religion.
It is the deadliest heresy of atheism because, as I wrote above, Euhemerism proves that the ancients were reasonable, wise people who never believed in supernatural heavenly beings, while we, the moderns who believe that we are the smartest humans ever, we are the idiots who produced agnosticism.
I have created a community which you are invited to have a look at.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/107327853880934966067
Euhemerus was not aware of all the information available to us (Venus figurines 35,000 years old, for example, or the translations of the ancient Egyptian texts or the existence and the interbreeding with the Neanderthals), so I’ve made a research and have collected enough evidence to support his theory.
+Dimitrios Trimijopulos I admire your enthusiasm for your subject. If I'm not mistaken, you' re saying that religion is a modern invention, and that human intellectual capacity has been steadily diminishing. Unless you're 35,000 years old, you, along with the rest of us, are a blithering idiot. This might explain how you came up with your theory.
It is patently uncritical to presume that things started well and have carried on getting worse since. It is a fact of human psychology that those of us who are healthy and normal (a good fit for our environment) will be slightly optimistic about the future (unrealistic). In fact, it has been shown that mild depression is a state not of pessimism, but of being able to accurately imagine the future without a positive bias.
I should make myself clear; being too realistic about the future is crippling and demonstrably pathological. A mildly depressed person lacks a positivity bias towards the future.
We also tend to whitewash the past in our memories. This enables us to be slightly optimistic about the future, and preserves critical resources (lazy brain) to conserve energy.
The net effect is that the future looks better than the present, and so does the past. Ultimately, this gives us the impression that now is always the bottom of the curve. Things were better before, and they'll probably get better eventually, but now is the pits.
Check out Steven Pinker's work if you're interested. It's quite the rabbit hole.
Sorry. TL;DR
Our brains make the past and the future look pretty darn good, but the present in comparison looks like the worst time in history.
+William Hilton
+Dimitrios Trimijopulos I admire your enthusiasm for your subject. If I'm not mistaken, you' re saying that religion is a modern invention, and that human intellectual capacity has been steadily diminishing.
No, I am saying that theology is a modern invention and that religion (stories about gods) is 40,000 years old at the very least.
As regards the intellectual capacity of humanity, there is a reverse analogy between the greatnes of God and the smallest of human mind: the greater the former the smaller the latter. 🙂
Unless you're 35,000 years old, you, along with the rest of us, are a blithering idiot. This might explain how you came up with your theory.
Blithering idiots!! Yes I like that. I’ll use that characterization when the talk is about academics.
+Dimitrios Trimijopulos We're all blithering idiots in when compared to the most intelligent being we can imagine. What a situation to be in!
+Nathanael Duke
I should make myself clear; being too realistic about the future is crippling and demonstrably pathological. A mildly depressed person lacks a positivity bias towards the future.
We also tend to whitewash the past in our memories. This enables us to be slightly optimistic about the future, and preserves critical resources (lazy brain) to conserve energy.
Nice philosophising psycho-analysis! No facts or evidence required!!
The ancients did not believe either in God or the Santa.
Modern people believe in God but are agnostic as regards Santa.
Will the people of the future believe both in God and in Santa?
That is the question for the philosopher to answer. 🙂
+Dimitrios Trimijopulos This isn't my data. I can give you sources if you give me a moment. I went on a neuro psychology learning bender about a year ago, and absorbed the work of several reputable neuropsychologists and neurobiologists. They may be wrong, but the data is compelling.
You can check out this talk by Tali Sharot (link below) to see where I got my information about the optimism bias.
http://new.ted.com/talks/tali_sharot_the_optimism_bias
Here is a pretty thorough starting point for what I've gleaned off of Steven Pinker. He has also delivered several compelling talks on the subject of the illusion of perceived decline:
http://stevenpinker.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions-about-better-angels-our-nature-why-violence-has-declined
I'll just leave this here 🙂
A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives by Cordelia Fine
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-Its-Own-Distorts-Deceives-ebook/dp/B00GRWUDOI/ref=tmm_kin_title_0