Agnostic

@1tm122n22m, Atma Unum

The term “agnosticism” emerged in mid-nineteenth-century Britain as a distinction from atheism, resonating with societal shifts. Learn more at Atma Unum. #Agnosticism #History https://wp.me/s3JLEZ-agnostic

The term “agnosticism” came about in mid nineteenth-century Britain. At that time, atheism was common among the lower classes, where radical, democratic politics also found the most support. These atheist often supported other taboo subjects, like birth control education. As more and more middle and upper class people began to abandon Christianity, but not their snobbery, they needed a therm that would distinguish themselves from their unrespectable atheist cousins: Agnosticism.

The Atheist does not say “There is no God,” but he says, “I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word ‘God’ is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which, by its affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me.”

Bradlaugh, Charles. 1864. A Plea for Atheism.

The word agnostic was created by the biologist Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) using the following components of Greek origin:

The prefix α- (a- = sin), as in aphasia, apathy and apepsia. It is related to an Indo-European root *ne-. We can see its original nasal when it is placed before vocal, as in: anarchy, aneroid and anomie.

The word γνῶσις (gnosis = knowledge), as in agnosis, autognosis and prognosis. It is composed with:

The root of the verb γνῶναι (gnomai) aorist variant of γιγνώσκειν (gignoskein = to know). It is related to the Indo-European root *gno- (to know), present in the words know, note, news, notary, through the Latin gnoscere.

The suffix -σις (-sis) indicating action as in aciesis, crisis, dose and paralysis.

The suffix –τικός (tikos = relative to) that we find in words like: exotic, and pragmatic.

Gnostics and agnostics

Unlike the Gnostics, the agnostics consider the existence and evidence of a God as a supreme entity to be questionable. They do not mean speaking of any truth as absolute because it cannot be demonstrated. They assume certain knowledge because they consider that humans do not go beyond their own existence. They allege that to know if a truth is absolute, one would have to know the eternity of possibilities and it would not be possible since the human brain has limits.

It is a tendency that Gnostics usually have after understanding that taking certain knowledge as facts or truths would be ideal. But they do take them into account as simple assumptions to understand other circumstances and be able to carry out different communications, for progress and learning.

The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the atheist does not believe in the existence of God (a-theo, without god), while the agnostic (a-gnosis, without knowledge) thinks that humans do not have the knowledge to understand or demonstrate its existence.

Some may wonder what the difference is between an agnostic and a skeptic. Agnostics are a subset of skeptics. An agnostic doubts that humans have the ability to understand the divine, while a skeptic doubts that we have the ability to understand any truth.

An agnostic does not exactly doubt the capacity of the human brain to understand God, but what most agnostics doubt or have doubted exactly is the capacity of the idea of ​​God to be understood or demonstrated by a human brain, which is different. If religion postulates that God is eternal, unknowable and incomprehensible, and therefore his existence is only assumed by faith, if his acts or manifestations exceed reason or the logic of the world, etc., the idea of ​​God It is obviously incomprehensible and unprovable by reason, and is only a voluntary act of belief.

Simply put, the agnostic only postulates that his only weapon is reason and refuses to affirm or deny something that is not “reasonable” or does not adapt to the ways of reason. And in principle, the agnostic leaves aside any religious idea as long as it cannot be demonstrated. What it denies, is the capacity of the idea of ​​God to be known by reason.

What the agnostic in practice manifests is that he is not interested in an idea that cannot be demonstrated by reason, the only weapon of understanding, and in which he therefore completely renounces his opinion, it is not of his interest.

It is quite different from skepticism and one cannot simply say that agnostics are a group of skeptics. There are thousands of agnostics who are not skeptical at all. Skeptic is briefly, from a technical, scientific and philosophical point of view, someone who refuses to make categorical statements or someone who methodically doubts logical statements that in many contexts are taken for granted, and subjects everything to doubt as a form of prior investigation.

In medieval times the word skeptic was synonymous with “scientist“, one who practices the investigation of everything as a method without taking anything for granted.

Vulgarly, however, in everyday life, the skeptic is understood as the person who does not firmly believe in anything (ideas, social, political values, etc.), but it is a very different intellectual position.

As for the atheist, he is not someone who does not believe in the existence of God, since the agnostic does not believe in practice in the existence of God to the extent or insofar as this cannot be processed by reason and there is no means of demonstration. The atheist is exactly the one who believes strictly in the non-existence of God, who is different, and is convinced that the idea of ​​God is refutable by reason and is refuted by it. The atheist believes that the idea of ​​God is refuted through reason.

Temporary agnosticism

Devitalisation and delusion are the frequent case history of the purely emotional mystic. When this astral cycle is over and he later (and probably in another life) swings into a frankly agnostic state of mind, there comes a restoration of balance and a more wholesome unfoldment becomes possible. The true and valuable fruits of the mystical experience of the past are never lost. The inner spiritual realisation remains latent in the content of the lafe, later to be resurrected to its true expression but the vageuness and the sense of duality must eventually be transformed into a realised mental clarity; dualism must give place to the experience of the at-one-ment and the mist must rol aways. The mystics sees through a glass darkly but some day must Know, even as he is known.

Bailey, Alice. (1995) Esoteric Psychology II. Lucis Publishing. New York

In modern times, the mystically oriented person comes under the care of a wise psychologist, and gradually develops in him a cycle of doubt, leading even to a temporary agnosticism. The result would be a rapid establishment of the desired equilibrium. Nevertheless, spiritual masters and healers could, also gently, encourage not only the fulfillment of their physical life obligations and responsibilities but also bring the needed orientation to establish contact with the higher soul and spirituality.

References:

Bailey, Alice. (1995) Esoteric Psychology II. Lucis Publishing. New York

Alexander, Nathan G. (2019) An Atheist with a Tall Hat On: The Forgotten History of Agnosticism. TheHumanist.com

Huxley, Thomas H. (2013). Man’s Place in Nature. Courier Dover Publications.

Related links:

• Misfits; self-awareness and social dynamics
• Somatic Flashbacks
• Meditation to Release Clones or Slaved Soul Fragments
• Meditations for Healing Trauma by Wolfgang Arndt
• Meditation to Release the Warrior Lineage
• Meditation to Transmute the Trauma of the Inquisition and Clean the Lower Astral

<3 Your engagement means a lot to us, so please feel free to like, comment, and share your thoughts. For more engaging content on art, personal development, and social justice, visit Atma Unum. <3 If you’ve enjoyed this article, consider supporting our work by exploring our books on Amazon Kindle. Your support is greatly appreciated!