Is philosophical Daoism (daojia) agnostic?

[thinker]

The title of the topic is pretty much self-explanatory.  I know that religious Daoism (daojiao) contains a pantheon of supernaturalistic entities.  Is daojia inherently agnostic, beyond the often supernaturalistically interpreted concept of the Dao itself?  To me the word "Dao" has no supernaturalistic elements, and refers only to a "path" in the philosophical sense.  So to me this doesn't prevent daojia from being agnostic, although I know that many, including some who practice daojia, consider the Dao to contain supernaturalistic aspects.  Perhaps some consider daojia to be inherently atheistic.  For purposes of this thread, please assume that the notion of daojia and daojiao being separate traditions is accurate (I've seen several discussions elsewhere get derailed into heated discussions of whether or not this separation is legitimate).

 

Thank you.

 

[Marblehead]

Hi Thinker,

 

The thread title question, in my mind, negates the consideration of agnosticism.

 

My reasoning:  Philosophy and religion are different concepts.  (Even though I have before said that religions grow out of philosophies.)

 

I have never, for my own use, considered Taoism to be a religion.  Afterall, I was already an Atheist before reading my first translation of the TTC.  If I had seen any religion in it I likely would have discarded it.

 

Yes, there are Religious Taoists.  Yes, there are Agnostic Taoists.  Yes, there are Alchemic (and Shamanic) Taoists.  All are valid.

 

However, Philosophy is philosophy, not religion.  Philosophy should be able to answer the reader's questions rationally and logically without the need for creating supernatural powers in order to create answers for the reader.

 

But I do consider Agnosticism to be a safe position belief as well as a bridge between philosophy and religion.

[dust]

MH makes a good point. I'd also like to consider the word "supernatural" --

 

"many, including some who practice daojia, consider the Dao to contain supernaturalistic aspects"

 

It seems obvious to me that the Dao, which is to say the unspeakable, the essence of the universe, is, in a literal sense, the supernatural; it is the source of nature, of all elements/processes/systems of existence. Being "above" all that we consider natural, it can be said to be "super"natural. But at the same time, it is nature. It's not literally a separate thing floating around above nature.

 

And it is not supernatural in the sense of Sam and Dean Winchester, in the sense that one can learn to harness its special powers and fly away, or make oneself invisible, or live forever.. Supernatural in this sense means "beyond the laws of nature", and this is impossible. Dao cannot be beyond itself.

 

 

 

As to the existence of gods and monsters... well, I don't believe in any of that, but using philosophical Daoism as a basis, I don't think that there's any justifiable position other than agnosticism. I don't see Laozi or Zhuangzi insisting vehemently that one must or must not believe in anything in particular..

Edited March 30, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

Dao cannot be beyond itself.

That looked so good I wanted to repeat it.

[Taoist Texts]

Is philosophical Daoism (daojia) agnostic?

The title of the topic is pretty much self-explanatory.  I know that religious Daoism (daojiao) contains a pantheon of supernaturalistic entities.  Is daojia inherently agnostic, beyond the often supernaturalistically interpreted concept of the Dao itself?  To me the word "Dao" has

no supernaturalistic elements,  

Apparently you define agnosticism as not believing in supernatural entities. If so, and if by daojia we mean writings of Lao-zi and Zhuang-zi, then the answer is no since both these writings contain numerous mentions of supernatural. Of course modern agnostics try to dissmiss those as metaphors, basically saying that words do not mean what they mean;).

 

 

So (if words means what they supposed to mean) the answer is no.

[dust]

Yes, ZZ mentions lots of magical creatures and other "supernatural" things...

 

...as did Aesop, as has many a great writer of stories..

 

Did they all believe all of their creations to be real?

 

 

 

彼其真是也  以其不知也

 

 

^Daoist agnosticism right there^

[soaring crane]

Gods were so normal in those times that nobody even considered debating their existence/influence. Definitely not agnostic as per the OP.

[Stosh]

People can relate to gods, why start trouble by denying them?

They are moot as far as understanding the principles being expounded though.

So I say yes, agnostic, is a fine descriptive.

I would also consider atheist,and  proto-scientific,  regarding the philosophical trend,, also reasonable. 

The writers may have not been atheist , or they may have been, it doesn't matter.

(A priest may teach math too. )

Edited March 30, 2015 by Stosh

[Geof Nanto]

They are moot as far as understanding the principles being expounded though.

 

I like aspects of all the above comments but, out of interest, what are the principles of Daoism we all agree on? Obviously there's Dao, De, Wu wei, ziran, implying themes such as naturalness, spontaneity, simplicity, and detachment from desires. These are derived primarily from the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi. Any others?

 

But the principles of Daoism as an embodied tradition are anything but simple. And the way "thinker" has framed his question actually negates more complete answers - answers that are far too complex to address here. I'd suggest reading Louis Komjathy's The Daoist Tradition for the excellent overview he gives on the totality of Daoism.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Darkstar

[Stosh]

I like aspects of all the above comments but, out of interest, what are the principles of Daoism we all agree on? Obviously there's Dao, De, Wu wei, ziran, implying themes such as naturalness, spontaneity, simplicity, and detachment from desires. These are derived primarily from the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi. Any others?

 

But the principles of Daoism as an embodied tradition are anything but simple. And the way "thinker" has framed his question actually negates more complete answers - answers that are far too complex to address here. I'd suggest reading Louis Komjathy's The Daoist Tradition for the excellent overview he gives on the totality of Daoism.

Thats a very Very good question .

Though in getting an answer I would probably be a hindrance in getting concensus, since I am really way far off from some more traditional views.

[dust]

Gods were so normal in those times that nobody even considered debating their existence/influence. Definitely not agnostic as per the OP.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#History

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

 

Do we really believe that not a single person in history before the 18^th Century was capable of thinking outside of their religious bubble?

Edited March 31, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Stosh]

First, find three people who genuinely want to call themselves Philosophical Taoists without caveat.

 

The mindset tends to attract an ecclectic freewheeling and syncretic following.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Stosh

[Geof Nanto]

First, find three people who genuinely want to call themselves Philosophical Taoists without caveat.

 

The mindset tends to attract an ecclectic freewheeling and syncretic following.

 

Yes, anyone who called themselves a Philosophical Daoist without caveats would be akin to a religious fundamentalist - he or she would be deifying Daoist texts. 

[Spotless]

These conversations tend to pass on definitions and love assumption.

 

If one takes the position that all supernatural abilities are natural and all gods are just beings with vast abilities that are beyond the scope of nearly everyone but are still all natural because it is impossible for anything not to be natural - then the atheist would be happy in this mix as would pretty much everyone - and we have said nothing - it's just a circle jerk.

 

I am not implying that the above is not true - but one might take away from this that a great many "natural abilities and beings" are indeed so far from the scope of what might even in our wildest openness seem ludicrous compared to anything we might entertain as natural that we have to stop and take a moment to ask why we have this language thing at all if not to work within boundaries of some sort of framing wherein we can intone some reference to what we actually consider Natural and those items well into the stratosphere of those natural things and those ones whom with some remaining modesty might call "Super Natural".

Edited March 31, 2015 by Spotless

[Spotless]

The theist and the atheist are both possessive - the agnostic is neither and un possessed.

 

At the heart of the notion of the Unknowable is simply a relinquishing of the idea that one can ascertain through thinking what one must either attain to understand or attain even to view from afar. The agnostic is not disengaged - he allows full un possessed engagement.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Spotless

[Marblehead]

The theist and the atheist are both possessive - the agnostic is neither and un possessed.

 

 

That calls for an explanation.

[Spotless]

In a caricature of a theist and of an atheist they are the same.

 

Both believe in their beliefs - one might consider one to be a bit of a dullard and lacking in discernment and the other to be lacking in higher heart and intuition.

 

The caricature of the Agnostic is one who refrains from speaking either on behalf of the "gods" or as an affront to the possibilities of which he/she does not know. The caricature of an agnostic is not one who has aversion to appearing all wet or on the other hand dry and sterile - the agnostic has an appreciation on a greater level for the more insecure open minded approach to things one does not know - this being that labeling and neatly speaking beyond ones capabilities and understanding are not necessary and in fact are deadly deadening habituations that radically diminish the light upon the path of inquiry. To this caricature of the agnostic the atheist is the truest of fools and the theist is possesed of a sort of irrational exuberance.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Spotless

[Stosh]

In a caricature of a theist and of an atheist they are the same.

Similar, in terms of conviction. Dissimilar in terms of the basis for aforementioned conviction.

 

 

- the agnostic has an appreciation on a greater level for the more insecure open minded approach to things one does not know 

Interesting choice of wording, very nifty threading of the needle.

 

But I agree , this is stereotype. Which may or may not fit real attitudes of real persons. 

Its possible to have respect for the other view , yet not share it. 

Edited March 31, 2015 by Stosh

[doc benway]

I agree with Marblehead that the question is artificial.

"Philosophical Daoism" is a focus on philosophical principles derived from Daoism, intentionally ignoring the theistic, supernatural, magical, and alchemical elements.

The parent religion from which this philosophy is extracted is clearly a theistic tradition.

The choice to extract all theistic elements could be motivated by atheistic or agnostic beliefs.
In my opinion, those beliefs are inherent in those making the choice of what aspects of Daoism they choose to embrace, not in the source material itself.

[flowing hands]

Well I started a thread very akin to this and of course shamanism was the start of Daoism (not religion), not any interpreted agnostic philosophy which emerged from the practices and observations of nature and 'nature' practices. Daoist philosophy is alive with spirit and self cultivation and informs us how to become Immortal as well as other things.

[Marblehead]

In a caricature of a theist and of an atheist they are the same.

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

[Marblehead]

Both believe in their beliefs - one might consider one to be a bit of a dullard and lacking in discernment and the other to be lacking in higher heart and intuition.

I don't have a belief.  There simply are no gods.  It's that simple.  Theists believe in gods they have never seen, heard, tasted, felt or smelt.

 

How can you possibly say that Atheists believe when in fact Atheists say they do not believe?  (We know.)

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

 To this caricature of the agnostic the atheist is the truest of fools and the theist is possesed of a sort of irrational exuberance.

I guess it's good that Atheists do not even consider bullshit like this.

[Spotless]

I don't have a belief.  There simply are no gods.  It's that simple.  Theists believe in gods they have never seen, heard, tasted, felt or smelt.

 

How can you possibly say that Atheists believe when in fact Atheists say they do not believe?  (We know.)

 

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".

 

 

 

[Spotless]

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.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Spotless