*Promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, June 29th, 2011 7:56am PDT - promote requested by original submitter Sagemind.

Ignorance is the key to enlightenment.

Amen to being tired of people being so certain about things. Science doesn't rule things out, usually. I like the cut of his jib, but scientists make poor philosophers , see also Dawkins. That said, like this guy, off to google I go!

Eagleman: "Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."

I would amend this to say that any religion, properly focused, is a legit Path to the same Source.

Very interesting and worthy of watching. There is more than we don't know than we do know.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Eagleman: "Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."
I would amend this to say that any religion, properly focused, is a legit Path to the same Source.


I'm not sure what you're saying. A religious position is just one of the many dots in the possibilian sphere. As he says you need scientific tools to knock out the ones that don't hold water.

An interesting takeaway from this is this question - are those possessed of a religion willing to say "I don't know"? Because if not then they're mighty sure about their tiny little dot.

This is actually pretty dumb ,

TLDR ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
this guy invents the idea that scientists and new athiests converse in a certain way and then uses that to invent his needless Possibilian thing. ( I don't know any athiets that state that god could never exist) ( this is also why you have the word agnostic to describe if someone believes what we can or cannot know)
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


I have never heard famous atheists , like dawkins or sam haris for example , claim that there is catagoricaly and most deifntly no god at all or that its imposable , thay have said that all the gods as decribed in the current major religoins are rediculouse , and that it would seem from the current data that there are no gods or that the likely hood of the universe being created by a god is slim .

no ohnist scentist claims they know annything for deffinate , but only to degrees of certainty , and all profecoinal scientist I have read or listend to always promote the fact that we know so littel and its important to be open minded and not alow human bias affect things.



If you are speculating beyond the scientific tool set then you are simply a philsipher ,
I dont get why this guy is inventing a whole bunch of words and acting as if what he is talking about is something new rather than just drawing atention to what alredy exists and is the prvaling atitude in science.

He says no one's fighting over Isis or Greek gods etc. "anymore". Were they ever? It's pretty hard to inspire the kind of groupthink you get in monotheisms when there's a whole pantheism of gods, each more human and flawed than the other... Once you proclaim that there is only one true god/doctrine, then you're ready for some real "divinely" inspired action (especially when you choose the war god Yahweh as your one and only).

I see value in an outlet for anyone weary of dogma, even if the characterization is false, and even if Possibilianism is just a more proactive Agnosticism. Agnostic, Atheist; let me know when to add Possibilian to my list.

>> ^bobknight33:

Very interesting and worthy of watching. There is more than we don't know than we do know.


More to the point, how do we know what is known is truly known (by knowledge, I might right and true belief). Epistemology is my favorite philosophical topic


@hpqp

Many of the Greek city states pledge to a Patron God: Poseidon at Corinth, Hera at Argos, Zeus at Kos, Athene at Sparta, Tegea and Athens. Different parts of the Nile also had the same type of Patronage. It is debatable how much of a role they played in war, but they surely did a part.

My opinion is Eagleman is wrong to think that "knowing too much" (science) means it's not possible to commit to a particular religion. Otherwise, he's articulated some good points.

While quantum mechanics doesn't "prove" there is a God, there's enough going on with matter and energy at that level--where mere observation changes outcomes--to suggest it would be easy for a supreme intelligence to "hide".

>> ^Deano:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Eagleman: "Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story."
I would amend this to say that any religion, properly focused, is a legit Path to the same Source.

I'm not sure what you're saying. A religious position is just one of the many dots in the possibilian sphere. As he says you need scientific tools to knock out the ones that don't hold water.
An interesting takeaway from this is this question - are those possessed of a religion willing to say "I don't know"? Because if not then they're mighty sure about their tiny little dot.

>> ^quantumushroom:


While quantum mechanics doesn't "prove" there is a God, there's enough going on with matter and energy at that level--where mere observation changes outcomes--to suggest it would be easy for a supreme intelligence to "hide".


Observation of a quantum system changes the outcome because at a quantum level the mere act of observing the system interferes with the very system you're trying to observe. While such results can be weird, it's not magic.

Based on what little we know scientifically, it's possible there's no objective physical reality at all, just patterns of matter and energy shifting in density. Now of course to us it's a silly statement, because we live in macro-reality with physical laws that safely never break.

At the quantum level there is simply too much going on (and nothing going on at all) to totally rule out the possibility of an existing higher intelligence unbound by linear time.

Religion often concerns the morality, needs and wants of such a Being, and that begins the debate.



>> ^FishBulb:

>> ^quantumushroom:

While quantum mechanics doesn't "prove" there is a God, there's enough going on with matter and energy at that level--where mere observation changes outcomes--to suggest it would be easy for a supreme intelligence to "hide".

Observation of a quantum system changes the outcome because at a quantum level the mere act of observing the system interferes with the very system you're trying to observe. While such results can be weird, it's not magic.

*citation needed*

How can you assert that "they surely did a part"? I call BS unless you can provide some historical evidence.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^bobknight33:
Very interesting and worthy of watching. There is more than we don't know than we do know.

More to the point, how do we know what is known is truly known (by knowledge, I might right and true belief). Epistemology is my favorite philosophical topic

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/hpqp" title="member since July 25th, 2009" class="profilelink">hpqp
Many of the Greek city states pledge to a Patron God: Poseidon at Corinth, Hera at Argos, Zeus at Kos, Athene at Sparta, Tegea and Athens. Different parts of the Nile also had the same type of Patronage. It is debatable how much of a role they played in war, but they surely did a part.

@hpqp I think the Iliad is a perfect reference to how the Greeks vied the role of the Gods in war. To your end, though, people like Plato actually spoke against the Gods and called them "bad influences", and old wife's tails. Mainly, what I speak to is the any difference, no matter how small, can be used as a rallying cry. A Sparta might say "Let's go kill some Athenan bastards!" Reading history from that time is really hard, as the historians were less about telling "facts" and more about telling stories, about convoying the feeling of the day. In that, from my readings of the ancient historians, it was also a lingering justification.

Edit: O ya, and I forgot to mention, Socrates was put to death for "Corrupting the youth from the teachings of the Gods". That has to count for something!

Silly 'soft' Atheism is what he is selling. Most Atheists will acknowledge maybe a extremely remote possibility of god.

What this conversation is really about is the ability to be honest about what we cannot know.

I have to agree with westy.

Possibilianism is already covered by atheism. While there is a small subset called "strong" atheism where the adherents claim to know there is no supernatural overlord, the rest of atheism is pretty much covered by Possibilianism, also called "weak" atheism.

"Weak" atheism is simply the stance that there is not enough evidence to commit to any particular religious philosophy. Whether a person wants to actively sift through claims in search of evidence is, of course, a personal choice.

I suspect that, like "Agnostics", Possibilianists will prefer that word because they fear the backlash of ignorant theists who link the word atheism with satanism.

@MaxWilder

I would like to propose a slight edit to this. There is only strong and weak agnosticism, not atheism. The question of "Do you believe in a deity" only has 2 answers; yes and no. Now, you can not believe because you didn't know of an idea like God. This is implicit atheism as opposed to explicit atheism.

Or more to the point, atheism only pertains to the question of do you believe, agnosticism relates to what can be known. Atheism is a theological position, Agnosticism is an entomological position.

This is the condensed version of my comment here


You are correct, though, Possibilianism is a form of explicit atheistic weak agnostic position.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@ MaxWilder
I would like to propose a slight edit to this. There is only strong and weak agnosticism, not atheism. The question of "Do you believe in a deity" only has 2 answers; yes and no. Now, you can not believe because you didn't know of an idea like God. This is implicit atheism as opposed to explicit atheism.
Or more to the point, atheism only pertains to the question of do you believe, agnosticism relates to what can be known. Atheism is a theological position, Agnosticism is an entomological position.
This is the condensed version of my comment here

You are correct, though, Possibilianism is a form of explicit atheistic weak agnostic position.


That's why I put "Agnostic" in quotes. Everybody uses it incorrectly, and I believe they do so because the word Atheist has such a stigma amidst those who have only heard of "strong" atheism.