I think we’ll see more and more similar concepts to possibilianism. Take a look at Sam Keen sometime.
Or look into Vilayanur Ramachandran as well.
Keen expands on inclusive ontological considerations, and Ramachandran expands on inclusive reconsideration of neuroscience effectively.
Even some orthodox monistaries are opening accepting practices to the public in offer of retreat without forcing any to accept their beliefs in the process, but instead allow for the possibility of the attendee’s perspective to be valid during their retreat sessions.
That’s to assume an agnostic spends very much time at all upon the subject of God. If you put some time into thinking about the matter you inevitably find that the presence or non-presence of God has very little bearing upon the human condition.
That is transtheism, Tab.
Having looked up the word, transtheism seems to lean toward the presence of God(s). I’m a bit more of a fence-sitter, except I deny the necessity of the fence as well.
I read something by Keen a while back. I’ll check them out. Yeah, Eagleman doesn’t have a lock on the trend.
I agree on your first point. Possibilianism itself seems to be a soft form of agnosticism.
No, it refers to literally meaning regardless of the state of gods.
Trans- beyond, aside, other side of, etc…
Theism - gods
For instance, Mahayana Buddhism is often described as transtheistic practice because gods are simply left out of it.
That said, IF you are talking about such as Jainism; then transtheism is unique there as it means to overcome the gods - a complicated concept itself.
But typically speaking, transtheism simply means neither atheist or theist; that such is simply of no concern to the ideology or individual in question.
“Transtheistic is a term coined by philosopher Paul Tillich or Indologist Heinrich Zimmer, referring to a system of thought or religious philosophy which is neither theistic, nor atheistic”
encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/transtheism
On the other hand to say, “everything is equally possible and something is impossible.” seems to be a contradiction as well. sense if everything is possible how can it also be possible that something is not? Plus if everything is possible, is it not possible then to think of something that is not possible?
Arthur C. Clarke said “The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible.”
Engaging. But for me there spirit of religion is not a serene one. You cannot explore the Unknown from a detached scientific impulse. What is the reason for the pursuit would be my question. Possibilianism, perhaps lacking conviction, pathos, settles in the realm of experimentation without having anything at all to lose. I don’t know. It lacks that importance of religion. It seems very responsible in considering the facts, but facts are not simply given but selected and created. We are not tabula rasa. We bring our biographies with us in our experimentation to some degree.
Atheism, in it’s strictest forms, is untenable, as well as one given religion, based on…the scientific spirit. Sounds like new age paganism. Let’s have a temple for every god, even foreign, even those that might exist without our knowledge. Keep our options open to every possibility. Now these gods are narratives. Let’s keep open to every narrative. Committed to none.
I think that whether you adhere to paganism, theism, or something even more specifis, it matters little if you have no need for it, no vitality to your belief. Religion begins on bent knee and not on a micrscope. You can feel awe at the marvel that is the universe, the beauty of a snowflake, it’s symetry, but from the creation there is a long way to the Creator, single, plural, etc. At best, this approach of possibilianism will generate alternative, yes, but it is untrue that a scientific approach holds all theories on equal ground, that there is no choice. Science generates theories often to replace old ones that are afterward thought only as a bridge that has been crossed, from utter ignorance to a rational explanation. So, eventually, how would you determine the true from the false, the best from the worst, just from reality, about what is beyond? An irrational and unscientific desire, emotion, thymos.
OK, maybe by your definition P is not a reilgion, or maybe religion is turning over a new leaf. Is that possible? More probably, Eagleman is not that serious about starting a new religion in the traditional sense of an organized institution. He’s like a hypothesis generating machine. He tests the ones he can and writes sci-fi or fantasy fiction about others.
Hello Felix,
— OK, maybe by your definition P is not a reilgion, or maybe religion is turning over a new leaf. Is that possible? More probably, Eagleman is not that serious about starting a new religion in the traditional sense of an organized institution. He’s like a hypothesis generating machine. He tests the ones he can and writes sci-fi or fantasy fiction about others.
O- I think that we are still dealing with the same human type, just under new and different circumstances. The world is a lot smaller now. There is a market of ideas out there, which the same human type still has to select from.
I think that as industrial progress sort of legitimized science as a source of truth even above religion. Today the Vatican recognizes evolution and the possibility of alien life forms, even to the detriment of religious doctrines it long held as unquestionable. Science however was unable, as many in the 19th century predicted, to put an end to religion and in fact mankind still thirsts for…wholeness. The old religions, discredited, where no place for the inquisitive minds of modern man. And so, as some predicted, if God did not exist…and this is a distinct possibility…new gods would be created. P is therefore not a religion, in the old sense, but it is not a new leaf either because long before the excess of monotheism there was a tradition for religious toleration based on almost scientific humility in Greece and in Rome. Perhaps we are merely returning to that stage. But still, one needs to remember that monotheism did eclipse that stage and for a reason.
Specifics religions may be absurd in the certainties, but the human mind perhaps needs that more in uncertain times. Uncomfortable ignorance is a luxury that many can’t afford. So, outside of an intelligensia, can possibilianism engage the minds of the many? It won’t be a religion, because it doesn’t have to be, because those that will pursue it are not on bent knee. It may become a philosophical stance. We may, like him, generate endless strings of self-consistent hypothesis, but for the man on bent knee one will become a self-evident truth.
It’s a fittingly postmodern stance.
Its antithesis is probably commitment.
Ditch the notion of single objective truth and be content with that. There’s probably some Camus-esque reference to some myth or legend that I can make here, only I don’t know any stories about floating in nothingness with nothing to hold onto, but just as much to experience as ever.
Fair enough, Wiki was misleading me.
Hi Omar
Do you mean that there is a single religious type of person?
You seem to think submission and absolutism are essential to religion. Perhaps you’re right, in which case, P might be open to religious ideas but it has not taken the existential or dogmatic leap into it.
Hello Felix,
— Do you mean that there is a single religious type of person?
O- Not a religious type, but persons, human beings. Scientifically we are part of one species. We share the same strenghts, the same weaknessess, we all cry, we all dream…sure, there are differences. Some are individualist while others are communists, introverts or extroverts, etc, etc; but all of these have to account for the same human make-up, the same human starting point. Religion also has to account for it as well as any sociologist.
— You seem to think submission and absolutism are essential to religion. Perhaps you’re right, in which case, P might be open to religious ideas but it has not taken the existential or dogmatic leap into it.
O- “Bent knee” has nothing to do with submitting to the Pope to kiss his rings. I mean that religion is about control, which we otherwise don’t have. The impulse for religion, I think, is tied to the realization of our vulnerability, including incertitude. Men may submitt only as a means to excersice their strenght. Bent knee alludes to that mean in the field of battle, or living under some perceived oppression and has ran out of any other recourse. At that end is where men become open to the insinuations that there is yet one road he has not taken. Jesus said that it would be hard for rich man to enter Heaven. Now interpret “rich” as strenght and you can see the point. Gods are implored and entretained where man is most vulnerable and weak, like approaching the battlefield, from where he does not know if he shall return or a sickness of one’s child…People need that absolute value, that known logos, that trustable transaction which will give them repose.
Thus, I question the adherent of P: Suppose you come across a bunch of hypotheses about the Divine; how would you test them? Perhaps religions cannot be sorted out like hypotheses can be? Or maybe they are hypotheses, but without some absolute basis, some unquestioned axioms, how will you test them? Or maybe you approach the caffeteria approach and pick what you like from the menu. But what will guide your selection, reason or emotion or taste?
Me, I think that we are all endowed with stomachs and that we all therefore feel hunger when our belly is empty and less so when our belly is full. It matter less the details of what is on your plate than the essensse of what is in your plate and the effect it has on you. If it brings positive change in your life, gives you meaning, fill your life, then that is what matters. You can have dead hypothesis that does not ignite you or just a hunch that sets you on fire and consumes every breath and every thought that eventually you might be tempted to set it in a linguistic frame for management. Yet, as you do, it becomes a hypothesis and loses it’s fire, it becomes domesticated. Suddenly your tummy is full of this most stable diet that you become a reptile, needing to be fed a lot less because you can survive longer on the Word you now manage and cultivate.
My stance is perhaps similar to P in that I don’t think that any one religion is the answer, but I also think that I can afford to think so in ways that others less fortunate cannot.
Omar–I suppose the open mindedness and stress on the importance of entertaining multiple hypotheses of possibilianism is what appeals to me. I have more often than not been a defender of religion on ILP which I can do on the basis of skepticism about knowledge of ultimate answers if nothing else. I believe in religious freedom including freedom from religion. My own understanding of religion is probably informed by my background in protestantism and inner life spirituality which tends to downplay the external formal aspects of religion. I don’t see the need to adhere to outward ritual as essential to religion.
Sounds like glorified agnosticism. He says that traditional agnosticism is ‘uninteresting’ but I don’t see how his Possibilianism doesn’t fall under the same banner. Sure, one is entertaining a myriad of possibilities - rather than simply shrugging his shoulders uttering “I don’t know” - but unless you’re actually committing yourself to all those possibilities at once (hard to imagine how one could do that), you’re basically still an agnostic.
I also noticed he seems ignorant of, or at least to dismiss, the strict definition of an atheist. Is an atheist not simply one who doesn’t hold a belief in God? If all you believe in are possibilities - without committing yourself to any one are more than one - you certainly don’t believe in God (with any conviction at least) and so you’re an atheist. Perhaps he should (and perhaps he does) distinguish between strong atheism (believing with conviction that there really is no God) and weak atheism (simply not holding a belief in God).
I think the idea of “floating” in nothingness is odd, in nothingness does “floating” even exist, and further more would there be any laws that let your body retain its form and functioning?
Well that suppose that belief is the same thing as knowing and that knowing or belief is the same thing as faith. If people thought Faith was knowing or beliveing they would probably have not invented the other word. Faith in my eyes is more about choosing to believe, and believe isn’t to know it is to think something is likely, to know is to believe 100%. So Faith is essentially desideing that something is most likely and thus letting that influence your behaviior and other ideas.