Via Fark and HuffPo, I learn about this thing called possibilianism.

What is possibilianism? 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.

But better than reading about it watch this 20 minute presentation by David Eagleman.

I was baptised Presbyterian and presently live in a Roman Catholic household. I remember at a very young age one of the first “deep thoughts” I had was realizing that everything in life and the world is relative: we can only know something in relation to something else. I think from that moment on it shaped how I viewed the world. Sure, I had a lot of growing up years spent in church youth groups and whatnot, but all that time did was demonstrate to me just how un-Christ-like so many Christians are. I get to undergrad and of course that becomes a good mind-opening experience (especially when you’re surrounded by so many people who claim to be “progressive” and “open-minded”, but in reality are some of the most close-minded individuals you’ll ever meet). I took courses on religion and philosophy and gained deeper thought and insight into many things. I received my first exposure to Taoism in undergrad, and while I don’t consider myself a Taoist, the philosophy, has much wisdom.

Then one day I realized that the best label I could give myself was “agnostic”. Why? Because the best I could come up with was “I don’t know”. Positions of theism or atheism are held as so definite: we KNOW for a FACT, or at least, that’s how those believers carry on. But it’s just that: belief. Neither group can know for a fact that their position is right. I often talk about how of the thousands of religions we’ve had in recorded history, and if we even bump that number up a bunch to count religions in unrecorded history and religions that maybe have never been recorded (e.g. small tribes, etc.) well… whatever you bump that number up to, it’s still quite small against the infinite possible explanations to questions like “how was the world created?” and “what happens when you die?”. So some simple math tells you that the chances of YOUR creation story being THE way things were created? Well, it’s possible it could be, but it’s more likely it’s not.

As well, I never liked the fact we called things “mythology”. To those ancient Greeks and Romans, to those ancient Egyptians, to those Vikings of yore… that was their religion. They believed in Zeus and Ra and Odin just as strongly as some today believe in Jesus and Allah. But people today shrug off that mythology as silly and uneducated. So, how will the religions of today be viewed 1000 years from now? All I can say is, I don’t know… but I can look at the trend and perhaps make a reasoned guess that today’s serious religion will be tomorrow’s silly mythology.

So when I stumbled upon this notion of “Possibilianism”, I didn’t know what to expect, but it sounded interesting and resonated with me. I watched the video and Mr. Eagleman was saying many of the same things I’ve been saying, only his presentation was far better put together. I never really liked the term “agnostic” because one, it never felt quite right, two, it has too many meanings that are either complicated to explain or are just misunderstood and you’ll never explain it well enough for someone to truly understand. So a new term like “possibilian”… maybe that’s a better label for me.

I don’t know.