What do you call someone

[jwoodie]

who believes that all religions are valid attempts to explain our existence? Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

 

[OldLady]

who believes that all religions are valid attempts to explain our existence? Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

I think a whole lot of people believe that. Defining some things makes no sense. Especially

who believes that all religions are valid attempts to explain our existence? Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

Wouldn't that just be someone who doesn't believe in a particular organized religion? I don't know if it makes them an agnostic.

 

[fncceo]

I don't call people ...

I text.

 

[Compost]

who believes that all religions are valid attempts to explain our existence? Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

A blanket statement saying sure, why not? Every religion is valid in their attempts... It's a pretense of open mindedness but is actually just lazy thinking. Speaking of lazy thinking- that's how agnostics strike me. They are open to proofs but just can't quite commit to thinking it all through and forming an opinion.

 

[Pogo]

who believes that all religions are valid attempts to explain our existence? Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

Religion does not require "belief in a greater intelligence".

 

[BlackFlag]

who believes that all religions are valid attempts to explain our existence? Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

I believe in a greater something but not necessarily something intelligent or that is even aware or cares that we exist. I certainly don’t think its existence or non-existence has anything to do with what happens in the world.

 

[Taz]

who believes that all religions are valid attempts to explain our existence? Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

An agnostic, such as myself, doesn't think that a god has been proven but leaves the door open if someone ever comes up with real proof either way. But don't expect real proof at this site, believe me, nobody has any.

 

[jwoodie]

What do you call people who can't respond to the question without hostility?

 

[well named]

who believes that all religions are valid attempts to explain our existence? Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

You could refer to such a person as a religious pluralist, perhaps. Sometimes people use the word universalist to mean much the same thing.

You might be interested in Huxley's Perennial Philosophy

Also, one of my favorite religious authors was Catholic priest whose father was an Indian Hindu and mother a Spanish catholic. He was an academic interested in comparative religion and inter-religious dialogue, and quite a bit of his writing is concerned with various kinds of mysticism and apophatic theology, which fits with your idea of agnosticism, I think. All of his work is pretty interesting, but I recommend The Rhythm of Being especially. Panikkar also wrote an English translation of various Vedic texts, which I think is amazing, but enormous to try to get through. His writing about Buddhism is also good but hard to find in English.

In the Christian tradition specifically, there are a lot of Byzantine authors from early Christianity who are interested in this idea of the unknowable-ness or indefinability of the Divine. As with a lot of ancient writing, they can be pretty obscure, but perhaps worth the time. Pseudo-Dionysius (~5th century) is paradigmatic, but see also works by Gregory of Nyssa (or Danielou's classic book about him), Maximus the Confessor, and others. Being Christian, they are less concerned with universalism in the sense you are talking about but I think it's interesting to see how different Byzantine theology often is from modern, western Christian theology. On that general topic, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church is very good.

 

[Picaro]

What do you call people who can't respond to the question without hostility?

Angry Faggots and Deviants.

 

[ding]

who believes that all religions are valid attempts to explain our existence? Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

No. They can’t. If they believe in a greater intelligence that is not part of but connects us then they are not agnostic.

 

[ding]

What do you call people who can't respond to the question without hostility?

Emotionally invested in an outcome.

 

[ding]

who believes that all religions are valid attempts to explain our existence? Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

An agnostic, such as myself, doesn't think that a god has been proven but leaves the door open if someone ever comes up with real proof either way. But don't expect real proof at this site, believe me, nobody has any.

You aren’t agnostic.

 

[BreezeWood]

who believes that all religions are valid attempts to explain our existence? Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

who believes that all religions are valid attempts to explain our existence ...

inflicted.



Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

that would be the antithesis of being agnostic ...

 

[well named]

Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

that would be the antithesis of being agnostic ...

There are a few different definitions of "agnostic" that people use, but all of them (following the Greek) refer to a lack of knowledge. But it's possible (in classical epistemology) to believe something without knowing that it's true, so I don't think you're right that it's contradictory for an agnostic to declare a belief in some proposition, as long as they hold it to be true that they lack knowledge of that proposition.

 

[BreezeWood]

Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

that would be the antithesis of being agnostic ...

There are a few different definitions of "agnostic" that people use, but all of them (following the Greek) refer to a lack of knowledge. But it's possible (in classical epistemology) to believe something without knowing that it's true, so I don't think you're right that it's contradictory for an agnostic to declare a belief in some proposition, as long as they hold it to be true that they lack knowledge of that proposition.

.

There are a few different definitions of "agnostic" that people use, but all of them (following the Greek) refer to a lack of knowledge. But it's possible (in classical epistemology) to believe something without knowing that it's true, so I don't think you're right that it's contradictory for an agnostic to declare a belief in some proposition, as long as they hold it to be true that they lack knowledge of that proposition.

for an agnostic to declare a belief ... as long as they hold it to be true that they lack knowledge of that proposition.

from the agnostics in this forum the very term defines them as disbelieving, would not declare a belief without proof - so the above would seem oxymoronic to the point of what you are describing is actually someone who is a theist ...

 

[well named]

from the agnostics in this forum the very term defines them as disbelieving, would not declare a belief without proof - so the above would seem oxymoronic to the point of what you are describing is actually someone who is a theist ...

I don't think you should infer the OP's usage of the term from others' usage. As I said, the term is used in a few different ways. It's very common for "agnostic" to be used as a category which is not mutually exclusive with "theist" or "atheist", so that a person might describe themselves as either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

Anyway, I'm sure the OP put "agnostic" in quotes for a reason. He recognized that he might be using the term in a little bit of a non-standard way. But the gist of the OP is nevertheless pretty clear despite any quibbles about terms, and they are asking more about agnosticism in relation to properties of some "higher intelligence", rather than the existence of said intelligence. So most of this is probably beside the point, but it still seemed worthwhile to me to point out that your complaint about terminology neglects some common uses of the word "agnostic".

 

[Meriweather]

who believes that all religions are valid attempts to explain our existence? Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

Religion isn't as much about explaining our existence, as it is about detailing accounts of our relationship with God and how one might go about establishing his/her own relationship with God.

Those who believe actively pursue and cultivate a relationship with God.
Those who do not believe insist there is nothing to pursue or cultivate.
Agnostics? Isn't that admitting that there may be something to pursue, but it's not worth bothering with?

 

[Crepitus]

who believes that all religions are valid attempts to explain our existence? Can an "agnostic" believe in a greater intelligence without trying to define it?

Your thoughts will be appreciated.

Thoughtful.

 

[norwegen]

One who believes all religions can explain our existence is someone who dines on comfort food.

It's like believing in Satan. Someone to blame for our own failures.

If a higher power exists, then faith must be reasonable. A faith rooted in emotion is a perfectly good waste of time.