If you haven't heard the term (I hadn't, until recently), it means you believe that we know too much to believe in any particular religion, but don't know enough to commit to atheism.

reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibilianism
TED video reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LENqnjZGX0A

It is summed up unknowingly by Voltaire: "Doubt is an uncomfortable position, but certainty is an absurd one."


Now to get to my point: there is often talk of very particular epiphanies on this site. Very specific beliefs and ideas are put forward with certainty, when perhaps there is not sufficient evidence to warrant certainty. DMT and other psychedelic experiences are batshit crazy. There are definitely similarities between many of them, but there are differences as well. There are even more differences in opinion on the implications and meanings behind them. What I'm suggesting is first, to see if people agree with this premise. Secondly, do you think our differing opinions on the implications could be classified into schools of thought, with at least general definitions? If so, what psychedelic schools of thought do you think exist?

..thanks Kartikay, juz wondering how this differs from the old term..'agnostic'...?

The technical definition of Agnosticism is the belief that religious claims are "unknowable," whereas Possibilianism says that it may be knowable, but we don't know yet.

David Eagleman (author of the great little book “Sum”) is the person who coined the term “Possibilianism”. (See his Possibilianism site ).

I think Possibilianism is an active, creative, and imaginative approach to exploring new ideas. Agnosticism doesn’t necessarily take the position that religious claims are unknowable, and that characteristic certainly isn’t what distinguishes Possibilianism from Agnosticism.

If the book “Sum” is any indication of Eagleman’s intent in creating the new term, then I think that Possibilianism is more a creative, imaginative approach to exploring the unknown rather than a way of simply declaring one’s conviction that certain things can’t be known. He considers “Agnosticism” to be too weak a term, because, to paraphrase him, too many Agnostics are simply uncertain about whether or not God exists, and they assume it’s a simple dichotomy. This may be true of some Agnostics, but it isn’t how Agnosticism is defined.

Take a look at the thread “The Improbability of Hyperspace” for my take on “Possibilianism” and Agnosticism.