David Eagleman - possibilian

JuliusCaesar

http://www.possibilian.com/

anyone come across this? Any opinions?

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."

Lapin

I still prefer Impossibilianism.

MisterEpicurus

It's certainly possible to consider this as a viable option. But I'm agnostic as to whether I should fully commit.

Supermensch

"I call myself a Possibilian: I'm open to ideas that we don't have any way of testing right now."

Is this not tautology? He's essentially saying that he is open to the possibility that things which are possible are possible. I would imagine that most scientists are of this stance (at least, one's who don't have vested interests in current models).

Maybe I don't understand. Either he's saying that he believes theories which we currently have no way of scientifically proving true may be possible, a statement which I'm sure many atheists would agree with, or he's saying that theories which we have no way of ever proving true may be possible, in which case he is talking about an unscientific universal force, and I fail to see the distinction between this and agnosticism.

Rheo

I remember reading about this a while ago. Sam Harris wrote an article criticising the position, saying it was just basically atheism.

robindch

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

http://www.possibilian.com/

Looks like it's aimed at lapsed agnostics.

Pushtrak

"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."

It's Pascal's Wager without being tied to a specific religion.

(PW was formulated with assumptions of Christianity inbuilt.)

CerebralCortex

What a redundant idea.

joseph brand

Reminiscent of Alain de Botton and his 'vision' of Atheism 2.0.

Alain also wanted to start building Atheist Temples.

These shysters are trying to fill the gap, which Atheism fills more than adequately, with something else. Why bother? Unless you plan to make a sh1t-tonne of cash. Which is what I'd bet they're doing.

They're like some sort of shape-shifting pastors.

Some people just really don't like the term atheist it seems.

Penn

"Is there a God" = Not a Yes or No question. It's possible. However unlikely, it's possible. If he's a "possibilian" in that regard (a.k.a agnostic), fine.

"Do you believe in God" = Yes or No. You either believe in God, or you don't. If you say you don't know, that's not an answer to the question being asked. "Do you believe in God" - You either do, or you don't.

^^^ The above is hugely based on stuff Penn Jillette has said, as is the majority of most of what I ever say which sounds slightly smart.

Mintoz

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

http://www.possibilian.com/

anyone come across this? Any opinions?

First I'd like to say I'm an athiest on Eagleman's outlook on God. There is no way I could believe in that conception of God either, (a bearded man in a sky).

Eaglemans perception on God seems to be the one Dawkins talks of, again something a child would come up with. He has failed to grasp the basic idea of the Abrahamic God, that is being itself, from where all things come, what is, as he said to Moses in Exodus, revealing his mysterious name YHWH ("I AM HE WHO IS", "I AM WHO AM" or "I AM WHO I AM").

Eaglemen isn't making much sense when he says he cannot commit to athiesm when we are so ignorant of the cosmos, implying that God is within the universe in a way we could one day know, for sure, as frail human beings.

Mark Hamill

So he's ignostic?

Gbear

This seems to crop up so often - what I perceive to be a misunderstanding in the term atheism, that I'm beginning to wonder am I the one who doesn't know what the word means.

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.

He's not the first I've seen saying this among philosophers and generally educated people, all of whom have access to dictionaries and wikipedia.

Avoiding the term atheism is a stupid cultural artifact. It's like a smug vegetarian avoiding describing himself as such because of **insert pretentious bollocks**.

I think for people who must surely know better it's completely cynical and, as mentioned above, is probably about selling books.