Glenn, thanks for your thoughts on atheism and agnosticism. After rereading
your book on "The Higher Power of the 12 Step Program"
http://hindsfoot.org/kHP1.html and other literature, I have become acutely aware
of the many definitions of agnostics and atheists. Throughout the ages
agnostics seem to have been those who balked at the current religious thought.
Quakers were even called agnostics. I have decided these terms are not
definable, especially in light of their historical use. What seems to me to be
more accurate is the use of the term gnostic -- direct knowing of the sacred.
This seems much more in keeping with AA spirituality, whether utilizing the
words "spirit in the rooms" on through to 11th step conscious contact. Jung was
intrigued with gnostics as well.

On Mar 16, 2011, at 2:33 PM, Glenn Chesnut wrote:

In a preceding message, Amelia <intuited@...> wrote: "I recently
reviewed the April 2009 issue of the AAGrapevine which featured Agnostics in AA.
Each story spoke of a definite spiritual experience. As I read the stories I
began to think that the term agnostic was more aptly being used as a code word
to mean non-Christian. The stories were full of references to a very vital
spirituality, utilizing many eastern religious beliefs interconnected with
meditation or energy. They were very moving stories and not what I would expect
of someone who was without certainty. The Conference Committee on Literature is
in the process of publishing a pamphlet 'which focuses on spirituality that
includes stories from atheists and agnostics who are successfully sober in
Alcoholics Anonymous.' This 61st Conference is entertaining a request to
reconsider this action. I am very curious about the AA historical use or misuse
of these terms. Is it an easy way to talk about 'other than Christian'
spirituality?"

The Greek prefix a- means no, not, un-

>>The term "theist" refers to someone who believes that God (Theos) exists.

>>The term "a-theist" therefore refers to someone who believes that there is no
God, that God (Theos) does not exist.

>>Ginosko in ancient Greek meant "I know," so an "a-gnostic" is (literally)
someone caught in a state of "un-knowing."

- - - -

THE RISE OF WESTERN ATHEISM IN THE 1840'S

In a book I just wrote, I talk on pp. 123-124 about the Rise of Modern Atheism
in the 1840's. See Glenn F. Chesnut, God and Spirituality

paperback:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywo\
rds=chesnut+god+and+spirituality&x=13&y=15
kindle:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Spirituality-Philosophical-Essays-ebook/dp/B0046ZRN82/\
ref=sr_1_cc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300217940&sr=1-1-catcorr

TRADITIONAL THEISTS: Some people in the western world rejected these new
atheistic ideas completely, and kept on trying to defend the old conceptualities
of the ancient and medieval worlds: the Bible was literally true, the church
authorities were infallible, people walked on water and rose from the dead, and
so on.

THE NEW ATHEISTS (1840 and afterwards): Other people in the western world
embraced these new atheistic ideas enthusiastically. A new world of science --
where the scientists were rapidly gaining infallible truth and explaining all
things -- was going to lead the human race out of the darkness of the past.
There would no longer be any uncontrollable natural phenomena killing people
(like earthquakes and tsunamis?), everyone in the world would be given excellent
health care (through universal health care) so that no one would ever get sick
and die any longer, our machines (oil drilling rigs and nuclear power plants)
would never malfunction and kill people, and so on.

"AGNOSTICS": But there were many people caught in the middle: they had been
brought up with traditional religious beliefs and did not want to let go of
them, and yet they had no real answers to all the attacks that the atheists were
making on their most cherished articles of faith. And there were others who had
tired of the whole debate, and insisted that they weren't going to believe
anything at all, past this point, without some kind of scientific evidence to
support it.

- - - -

THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE ON AGNOSTICISM

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Thomas Henry Huxley gave a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in
1876, in which he coined to word "agnostic" (not-knowing, un-knowing,
non-knowing) to describe his philosophy, which was a rejection of ALL claims of
spiritual or mystical knowledge. "Huxley identified agnosticism not as a creed
but rather as a method of skeptical, evidence-based inquiry."

But in the many years that followed, the word "agnostic" got adapted to describe
all sorts of different approaches to religion. The Wikipedia article describes
some of these varieties:

===========================================
*Agnostic atheism: Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have
belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to
know that a deity does not exist.

*Agnostic theism: The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of
any deity, but still believe in such an existence.

*Apathetic or Pragmatic agnosticism: The view that there is no proof of either
the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist
appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the
question is largely academic.

*Ignosticism: The view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward
before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed.
If the chosen definition is not coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist
view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable.
A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and
agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and
agnosticism accept "a deity exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be
argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or
a nontheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.

*Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent
agnosticism"): The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a
deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of
our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another
subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a
deity exists or not, and neither can you."

*Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal
agnosticism"): The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is
currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold
judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't
know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence
we can find something out."
===========================================

As far as I can tell, there are very few AA members who genuinely understand
what the term "agnostic" originally meant, that is, what the word meant between
1876 and 1939. Maybe a handful, but not many. And as far as I can see, the term
"agnostic" has now come to mean so many different things, that it hardly has any
real meaning left at all.

So Amelia, I think that you are probably correct when you say that, at New York
AA headquarters, the term AGNOSTIC is "being used as a code word to mean
non-Christian," that is, as a "way to talk about 'other than Christian'
spirituality."

But for myself, I think that using the word "agnostic" in this way is a misuse
of terms, because the chapter in the Big Book called "We Agnostics" was an
attempt to deal with the skeptical position which Thomas Henry Huxley put
forward in 1876. If we want a pamphlet talking about Hindu, Buddhist, New Age,
Native American spirituality, worship of the Triple Goddess, wicca, modern
California gnostic and kabbalistic groups, and other things of that sort, that
they should have titled it something different, like perhaps "Varieties of AA
Spirituality." And I also think that some of the hostility toward the pamphlet
(among a lot of AA members) might lessen to a degree if it were retitled in that
fashion. But that's just my two cents worth.
__________________________________________

Original message from Amelia <intuited@...> (intuited at
earthlink.net)

Glenn .... I recently reviewed the April 2009 issue of the AAGrapevine which
featured Agnostics in AA. Each story spoke of a definite spiritual experience.

As I read the stories I began to think that the term agnostic was more aptly
being used as a code word to mean non-Christian. The stories were full of
references to a very vital spirituality, utilizing many eastern religious
beliefs interconnected with meditation or energy. They were very moving stories
and not what I would expect of someone who was without certainty.

The Conference Committee on Literature is in the process of publishing a
pamphlet "which focuses on spirituality that includes stories from atheists and
agnostics who are successfully sober in Alcoholics Anonymous." This 61st
Conference is entertaining a request to reconsider this action. I am very
curious about the AA historical use or misuse of these terms. Is it an easy way
to talk about "other than Christian" spirituality?

Amelia