Are you a possibilian?

[Magical Realist]

"Possibilianism is a philosophy which rejects both the idiosyncratic claims of traditional theism and the positions of certainty in atheism in favor of a middle, exploratory ground. The term was first defined by neuroscientist David Eagleman in relation to his book of fiction Sum. Asked whether he was an atheist or a religious person on a National Public Radio interview in February, 2009, he replied "I call myself a Possibilian: I'm open to ideas that we don't have any way of testing right now." In a subsequent interview with the New York Times, Eagleman expanded on the definition:

"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."

An adherent of possibilianism is called a possibilian. The possibilian perspective is distinguished from agnosticism in that it consists of an active exploration of novel possibilities and an emphasis on the necessity of holding multiple positions at once if there is no available data to privilege one over the others. Possibilianism reflects the scientific temperament of creativity, testing, and tolerance for multiple ideas."---http://www.possibilian.com/

I consider myself a possibilian. I believe that what we experience of reality is only a thin sliver of what is actually out there, and that this reality is on this account more varied and infinitely complex than it seems. You have to consider what the universe has accomplished in 12 billion years. From random jostling atoms in a superheated soup to a consciousness capable of discerning mathematical laws and creating symphonies and democracy and the Internet, it is hard to overestimate what is possible for a reality vastly beyond us on all sides. This could be good news or bad news, but I align myself with hope, assuming a fundamental goodness in the event of Being itself.

[cluelusshusbund]

I believe that what we experience of reality is only a thin sliver of what is actually out there, and that this reality is on this account more varied and infinitely complex than it seems.

Thats my gut feelin.!!!

You have to consider what the universe has accomplished in 12 billion years. From random jostling atoms in a superheated soup to a consciousness capable of discerning mathematical laws and creating symphonies and democracy and the Internet, it is hard to overestimate what is possible for a reality vastly beyond us on all sides. This could be good news or bad news, but I align myself with hope, assuming a fundamental goodness in the event of Being itself.

I align myself wit "I dont know"... but based on history... existence is a dog eat dog proposition.!!!

[Yazata]

"Possibilianism is a philosophy which rejects both the idiosyncratic claims of traditional theism and the positions of certainty in atheism in favor of a middle, exploratory ground.

It sounds like agnosticism to me. In particular, it sounds like what I call 'weak agnosticism'.

If agnosticism is the position that we don't have knowledge of transcendental matters, strong agnosticism would be the view that such knowledge is impossible in principle, while weak agnosticism would be the view that such knowledge might be possible, for somebody, sometime.

The term was first defined by neuroscientist David Eagleman in relation to his book of fiction Sum. Asked whether he was an atheist or a religious person on a National Public Radio interview in February, 2009, he replied "I call myself a Possibilian: I'm open to ideas that we don't have any way of testing right now."

What about the 'Russell's teapot' problem? If we are going to (kinda) embrace beliefs that aren't supported by evidence, presumably some other criterion exists that enables us to separate the embraceable possibilities from the ridiculous ones.

Which leads to a second question: what does "open to" mean? It's theoretically possible that all of the (so-called) human beings around me are really space-aliens in disguise, but I don't lose sleep worrying about it. Eagleman seems to be suggesting that the possibility of the existence of God (or whatever) deserves a more heartfelt response than that. So there's a problem not only in weighting the possibilities, but in determining what personal emotional response, if any, is appropriate from us.  

In a subsequent interview with the New York Times, Eagleman expanded on the definition:

"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 great deal will depend on how we define the word 'God'.

If we use 'God' to refer to a set of fundamental metaphysical functions such as first-cause or the reason reality exists in the first place, I think that an agnostic position is best. We simply don't know the answers to those kind of questions. (We don't even know what form the answers to many of them would take.) The problem then is justifying the use of the very loaded and connotation-filled word 'God' to refer to whatever the unknown answers are and explaining why those unknown answers are a suitable object of religious passion and devotion.

If we choose instead to use 'God' to refer to the personalized deities of particular religious mythologies, to Yahweh or Krishna or Allah, Eagleman seems to already acknowledge his doubts.  

As for me, I'd call myself an agnostic with regards to the metaphysical functions and an atheist with regards to the particular personal deities.

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.

Perhaps Eagleman should read Thomas Huxley's essay where he explains why he coined the word 'agnostic'. Huxley was specifically talking about the big metaphysical problems, the secrets of the universe in effect, complaining how everyone thought they already had all of the answers, while Huxley himself not only didn't have a clue, but suspected that the questions were unanswerable in principle.

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."

The first sentence describes being a religious seeker, but the second at least seems to contradict that impression. How can one be a seeker if one isn't interested in finding anything?