{"id":5113,"date":"2011-02-18T09:06:20","date_gmt":"2011-02-18T03:06:20","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2019-08-01T05:38:30","modified_gmt":"2019-08-01T05:38:30","slug":"possibilians-vs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kk.org\/thetechnium\/possibilians-vs\/","title":{"rendered":"Possibilians vs Agnostics"},"content":{"rendered":"

Neuroscientist David Eagleman<\/a> has articulated a new religious vocabulary that many, including me, find attractive. It’s kind of a third way, a nerd way. It is neither traditional belief in religion, nor traditional atheism. Nor is it traditional agnosticism. Here’s how David describes it (in a video talk<\/a>):<\/p>\n

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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n