Is philosophical Daoism (daojia) agnostic?

[Seeker of Wisdom]

What about 'there simply are no flying spaghetti monsters'? Is it okay to not believe in them? Or should we be agnostic about it (as we can't prove they don't exist)? What, if anything, makes this different from 'there simply are no gods'?

 

People think it's okay to be confident about the nonexistence of invisible unicorns, Russell's teapot, the flying spaghetti monster, and so on. Until there is a reason to believe, non-belief is the rational (and default) position. Gods are no different just because a lot of people believe in them.

 

There is evidence for pheromones. Maybe there will be evidence for gods at some point - but there isn't now, so far as I'm aware. Again, it's rational to not believe in something if you see no reason to believe it, and someone can always change their mind when new info comes along.

 

An internal drive for 'higher' could mean any number of things (gods, karma ripening, higher planes, existential dissatisfaction...). Of course if someone interprets it as divine grace, gets into Christian mysticism and progresses spiritually toward awakening, or any other helpful route based on a belief they've latched on to, fantastic. But a rational person won't leap into an unfounded belief about gods or other things because of this drive. They will keep an open mind and explore deeper into their unfolding so that they can actually discover what's happening for themselves, rather than assuming something.

 

Note - as a Buddhist, I would say I'm a nontheist.

 

Onto the thread topic, perhaps daojia could be considered nontheistic? Agnosticism doesn't really put forward a worldview, while daojia does.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Seeker of Wisdom

[Geof Nanto]

The Dao is ultimately mysterious and unknowable. Even Richard Dawkins, the high priest of atheism, doesn’t rule out the possibility that there could be far more intelligent entities than us humans in the universe - and they would seem like gods to us. However his distinction is that they would have evolved over long periods of time, not been created.  He says our human view of 'reality' is so tiny we can't claim certainty about these things. But he says that whatever the truth is found to be, it will definitely not be the version found in the bible.

 

Based on my own experience, I believe such entities exist - however it is not an argument I wish to pursue with anybody. It is a personal declaration of belief.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Darkstar

[Stosh]

High priest of Atheism?  

 

Isnt he the High Priest of Family Feud?

Edited March 31, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Both of your answers so far are the perfect caricature of the Atheist and support the prescise outline of the caricature above them. "There are simply no gods" - you know this as a fact or as a definition that negates the possibility of the use of the word "God" - in either case do you know or believe in what you are talking about? You then go on to say: "I guess it's good Atheists do not even consider bullshit like this" - yes it is true to the caricature - you "do not even consider".

And you have insulted both Atheists and Theists by suggesting that both are the same; that both are exaggerations of some unknown truth.  And you present your own view, as an agnostic to be the only true truth where in fact agnostics don't even know so why the fuck are they speaking at all?

 

A caticature is a straw dog.  You have trashed both Theists and Atheists.

 

Yes, I know that there are no gods.  Everyone else has the right to believe what they wish to believe regarding gods.  Some people even claim to know that there are gods even though they have never seen one or know of anyone who has ever seen one.

 

Agnostics just don't have a clue.

 

And no, I do not consider bullshit anymore.  I have had my share of it, it has taken me far too many years to remove the stupidity and I see no reason to start the stupidity all over again.

 

And remember, it was you who started this discussion indication that Agnostics are the only correct people because they don't know.  Well, I damn sure know some things and one of those things is that I don't need to be hearing about how wise those who don't know are and how much of a fool you think Atheists are.

[Marblehead]

Pheromones attract us to one another yet we do not feel see or taste them.

 

The theist may believe in "gods" and the higher natural planes because of an internal intuition that recognizes the "pheromones" of these higher dimensions and frequencies while on the actual physical plane that very same individual is unable to explain the overbearing attraction to belief and inquiry into what he or she may see as irrational and yet somehow the proper road to tread upon.

 

Religion fits this purpose until one can no longer merely believe but must give full due dilligence to the pursuit within oneself - at which point religion ceases to have any value.

 

A conscious disengagement from intuition and a negation of ones natural abilities to be influenced by the "pheromones" so to speak of the higher orders is certainly as sad to see in the caricature of the atheist as is the fundamentalists restrictive views of higher planes.

And there you go again.  Insulting Atheists.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  You are simply regurgitating BS that has been spread by people over and over again.

 

You attribute conscious disengagement from intuition to Atheists but it are they who live with intuition as the roots of all they do.

 

So what are you trying to prove.  You are apparently an Agnostic.  You insult religious people as well as Atheists.  And you admit that you don't even know.  How brave of you!!!

[dust]

MH... I'm not sure why you're getting so agitated by Spotless when steve and flowing hands are presenting far more provocative assertions!

[Marblehead]

MH... I'm not sure why you're getting so agitated by Spotless when steve and flowing hands are presenting far more provocative assertions!

I don't know why either.  Am I being unfair?  I don't know.  Perhaps.

 

But that was a thing I take as an insult; to say that Atheists are just like Theists.  I take it as an attempt to belittle others.

[steve]

Once again I wish I had a "Don't Like" button.

I agree but for totally different reasons...

[Marblehead]

I agree but for totally different reasons...

Hehehe.  I'm sure you don't like some of my posts.  But that's okay; we are different people.

[steve]

But that was a thing I take as an insult; to say that Atheists are just like Theists.  I take it as an attempt to belittle others.

 

Spotless' argument, in my view, is embracing Theist, Atheist, and Agnostic on equal footing.

From my perspective, you are belittling Theists with your disdain, Spotless is belittling no one.

[dust]

Well, calling anyone the "truest of fools" is fairly provocative. But I've seen you keep your cool in the face of worse. And I don't think that his general line of reasoning is entirely unreasonable in a thread about philosophical Daoism being agnostic...

[Marblehead]

Spotless' argument, in my view, is embracing Theist, Atheist, and Agnostic on equal footing.

From my perspective, you are belittling Theists with your disdain, Spotless is belittling no one.

Thanks for the input.  That's two who suggest that I was being an ass.  One more and I will have to make amends.

[Marblehead]

Well, calling anyone the "truest of fools" is fairly provocative. But I've seen you keep your cool in the face of worse. And I don't think that his general line of reasoning is entirely unreasonable in a thread about philosophical Daoism being agnostic...

You already voted.  You get only one vote.

[steve]

Thanks for the input.  That's two who suggest that I was being an ass.  One more and I will have to make amends.

 

Thanks for your openness, I did not mean to be critical, just objective... from my point of view.

[Marblehead]

Thanks for your openness, I did not mean to be critical, just objective... from my point of view.

I did not take it as any form of negativity.  I am looking for honesty.  If I have been unfair then I need make adjustments.

[Stosh]

Theres no taoist rule about being fair. Its not like the theists are taking pains to keep the numbers even its looks like five or so against one, maybe two.

Take Steve there, he thinks his idea might be objective, well, he didnt point at spotless or flowing hands. Is that fair? No its not.

He doesnt see Spotlesss shots across the bow? I see them ,it doesnt upset me, he is allowed some leeway for his own perspective, but that doesnt mean, he didnt say anything easily taken badly. Once he understood your feelings, it was possible for him to make nice as well, so theres no reason for all of it to lie on your shoulders.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Look, if he feels Spotless is being fair, by holding all the groups on equal footing, then his own fairness needs to look the same, if one thinks each individual situation, like your reaction, needs to be judged in respect to the validity of the other positions, ....so doing, deeming your own reaction abrupt relatively, then you shouldnt be expected to feel your opinions are not more valid than your opposers.

No doubt each of us feels RIGHT... and feeling thus.. wish to let loose a torrent of justified fervor.

That is conventional.

However, less conventional , and perhaps better, is to live and let live as much as we can ,even accepting the odd trampled foot.

[dust]

The Great Dao does not admit of being praised. The Great Argument does not require words. Great Benevolence is not (officiously) benevolent. Great Disinterestedness does not vaunt its humility. Great Courage is not seen in stubborn bravery. The Dao that is displayed is not the Dao. Words that are argumentative do not reach the point. Benevolence that is constantly exercised does not accomplish its object. Disinterestedness that vaunts its purity is not genuine. Courage that is most stubborn is ineffectual. These five seem to be round (and complete), but they tend to become square (and immovable). Therefore the knowledge that stops at what it does not know is the greatest.

[Marblehead]

 

The Great Dao does not admit of being praised. The Great Argument does not require words. Great Benevolence is not (officiously) benevolent. Great Disinterestedness does not vaunt its humility. Great Courage is not seen in stubborn bravery. The Dao that is displayed is not the Dao. Words that are argumentative do not reach the point. Benevolence that is constantly exercised does not accomplish its object. Disinterestedness that vaunts its purity is not genuine. Courage that is most stubborn is ineffectual. These five seem to be round (and complete), but they tend to become square (and immovable). Therefore the knowledge that stops at what it does not know is the greatest.

True although I have a problem keeping my mouth shut when I feel something needs be said.  And yes, you know this feeling too.

[Stosh]

Dustybeijing

"When you have collected all the facts and fears, and made your decision, turn off your fears , and go ahead!"

Patton

[dust]

True although I have a problem keeping my mouth shut when I feel something needs be said.  And yes, you know this feeling too.

 

What makes you say that? I am the Perfect Man, dammit!

 

No..but I found that Zhuangzi quote relevant both to the brewing argument and the larger topic in question (agnosticism):

 

 

故知止其所不知，至矣

 

Therefore knowledge/understanding that stops at what it does not know/understand is the highest

[Marblehead]

What makes you say that? I am the Perfect Man, dammit!

There are people who know how to see those who are hiding.

 

No..but I found that Zhuangzi quote relevant both to the brewing argument and the larger topic in question (agnosticism):

 

 

故知止其所不知，至矣

 

Therefore knowledge/understanding that stops at what it does not know/understand is the highest

Yes.  But if the discussion had stayed on topic nothing would have come to brew.

 

Please note that I "Liked" his post #14 but then it was followed with post #15.  I didn't see reasoning in the post so I asked for clarification and then all hell broke loose.

 

And I will still suggest that Chuang Tzu was an Atheist if only based on the one single passage you quoted above.  Stop looking for gods, there aren't any.

 

 

 

[Taoist Texts]

故知止其所不知，至矣

 

Therefore knowledge/understanding that stops at what it does not know/understand is the highest

 

Knowledge stops. At what it does not know. 

 

This does not make sense. All known things were previously unknown. How would anything be known if knowledge would stop at every unknown?

 

And why it is the highest?

[Marblehead]

Knowledge stops. At what it does not know. 

 

This does not make sense. All known things were previously unknown. How would anything be known if knowledge would stop at every unknown?

 

And why it is the highest?

You are mean.  Hehehe.  Dusty might have a difficult time offering you an acceptable answer; but there are a number of good answers to your question although the data is spread out throughout The Chuang Tzu.

 

Yeah, I ignored the "highest" in that post.

[Taoist Texts]

You are mean.   

but not lean.

 

again "knowledge stops" is not even english. What is it to stop - do not enquire, do not think it over, do not look?