Agnosticism

[steve_bank]

Gosh darn it to heck. Now I have to comsider changing from atheist to agnostic. Or maybe not. I generally consider the quetion itself as meaningful as the question of The Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot.

I do beleive as a general view while I see no evidence for gods I can not prove the claim is false. I debated that position on another thread. I consder that a positiohat appiles to things in general not just gods.

I leave it to philosopher and theologists to create a pigeonhole with which to categorize me.

Interesting that Christians may view agnostic as leading to dangerous anthologies like crimes against humanity considering history to today. Jews, Chrtians, and Muslims and violence of the holy sites in Jerusalem venorated by all three.

Agnosticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."[2]

The English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the word agnostic in 1869, and said "It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." Earlier thinkers, however, had written works that promoted agnostic points of view, such as Sanjaya Belatthaputta, a 5th-century BCE Indian philosopher who expressed agnosticism about any afterlife;[4][5][6] and Protagoras, a 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher who expressed agnosticism about the existence of "the gods".[7][8][9]

Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.[10]
— Thomas Henry Huxley

That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence; and that reprobation ought to attach to the profession of disbelief in such inadequately supported propositions.[11]
— Thomas Henry Huxley

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.[12][13][14]
— Thomas Henry Huxley

Being a scientist, above all else, Huxley presented agnosticism as a form of demarcation. A hypothesis with no supporting, objective, testable evidence is not an objective, scientific claim. As such, there would be no way to test said hypotheses, leaving the results inconclusive. His agnosticism was not compatible with forming a belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim at hand. Karl Popper would also describe himself as an agnostic.[15] According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in this strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.[2]

George H. Smith, while admitting that the narrow definition of atheist was the common usage definition of that word,[16] and admitting that the broad definition of agnostic was the common usage definition of that word,[17] promoted broadening the definition of atheist and narrowing the definition of agnostic. Smith rejects agnosticism as a third alternative to theism and atheism and promotes terms such as agnostic atheism (the view of those who do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, but claim that the existence of a deity is unknown or inherently unknowable) and agnostic theism (the view of those who believe in the existence of a deity(s), but claim that the existence of a deity is unknown or inherently unknowable).[18][19][20]

Theistic​

Theistic critics claim that agnosticism is impossible in practice, since a person can live only either as if God did not exist (etsi deus non-daretur), or as if God did exist (etsi deus daretur).[90][91][92]

Christian​

According to Pope Benedict XVI, strong agnosticism in particular contradicts itself in affirming the power of reason to know scientific truth.[93][94] He blames the exclusion of reasoning from religion and ethics for dangerous pathologies such as crimes against humanity and ecological disasters.[93][94][95] "Agnosticism", said Benedict, "is always the fruit of a refusal of that knowledge which is in fact offered to man ... The knowledge of God has always existed".[94] He asserted that agnosticism is a choice of comfort, pride, dominion, and utility over truth, and is opposed by the following attitudes: the keenest self-criticism, humble listening to the whole of existence, the persistent patience and self-correction of the scientific method, a readiness to be purified by the truth.[93]

The Catholic Church sees merit in examining what it calls "partial agnosticism", specifically those systems that "do not aim at constructing a complete philosophy of the unknowable, but at excluding special kinds of truth, notably religious, from the domain of knowledge".[96] However, the Church is historically opposed to a full denial of the capacity of human reason to know God. The Council of the Vatican declares, "God, the beginning and end of all, can, by the natural light of human reason, be known with certainty from the works of creation".[96]

Blaise Pascal argued that even if there were truly no evidence for God, agnostics should consider what is now known as Pascal's Wager: the infinite expected value of acknowledging God is always greater than the finite expected value of not acknowledging his existence, and thus it is a safer "bet" to choose God.[97]

Atheistic​

According to Richard Dawkins, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero a person is willing to rate the probability of existence for any given god-like entity. About himself, Dawkins continues, "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."[98] Dawkins also identifies two categories of agnostics; "Temporary Agnostics in Practice" (TAPs), and "Permanent Agnostics in Principle" (PAPs). He states that "agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability" and considers PAP a "deeply inescapable kind of fence-sitting".[99]

 

[bilby]

Not this old chestnut again.

Agnosticism and Atheism are not different in degree, they are different in kind. The axis Theist <-> Atheist is orthogonal to the axis Gnostic <-> Agnostic, so the idea that 'agnostic' is a point on the Theist <-> Atheist axis is simply wrong.

Theism vs Atheism is a question of what a person believes: Are there gods, or not?

Gnosticism vs Agnosticism is a question of how confident a person is in their position: Are you certain, or doubtful?

Many gnostic theists see little difference between atheism and agnostic theism, but that position is simply wrong (on two counts - an agnostic theist isn't an atheist, no matter how much other theists might want to claim that he is; and gnostic theism is itself at odds with easily observed reality).

It's quite possible to be an agnostic and an atheist, as captured by the phrase "I don't think there is a god, but I am not sure". But the two positions aren't related.

Asking "Are you an atheist or an agnostic" is like asking "are you right handed or blonde haired?". It's not an either-or question.

Agnosticism on matters for which you have no evidence because none exists is the foundation of science.

Agnosticism on matters for which evidence exists is ignorance.

Agnosticism on the question of the existence of the gods of most religions falls squarely into the ignorance category; There's no other excuse for not knowing that such things are either self contradictory, or contradicted by observed reality.

 

[Politesse]

There's no other excuse for not knowing that such things are either self contradictory, or contradicted by observed reality.

Oh?

I'm always after some sort of material evidence for atheism, something I woud be most curious to see but none can ever seem to provide. Atheists are very good at demonstrating why they believe theistic beliefs to be wrong (usually by dint of cherrry-picking particular beliefs that clearly contradict an empirical observation), but are not capable of showing that their own perspective best explains... well, anything. Such an argument would take me out of the agnostic camp on the God question if it were convincing. But I'm not impressed by someone's ability to spot logical flaws in other people's religions. This is easily done. Religious people do it to each other all the time. It's low hanging fruit. Justifying your own perspective rationally is much more difficult. Most atheists struggle to even define their worldview without reference to theism, in fact, which makes it rather difficult to evaluate let alone test any claims they might make.

 

[James Brown]

I don't know if God exists, but I don't believe he does.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't know if I have seven invisible, supernatural, magical heads, but I don't believe I do.

I'm an agnostic septemnogginist.

 

[Hermit]

It's quite possible to be an agnostic and an atheist, as captured by the phrase "I don't think there is a god, but I am not sure". But the two positions aren't related.

1) In the absence of empirical evidence substantiating the existence of any supernatural entity I lack a belief in any such. That makes me an atheist by definition.
2) Proof or disproof of the existence of any supernatural entity is beyond the purview of empiricism. As an empiricist, that makes me agnostic about existence of supernatural entities.
3) Ergo, that makes me an agnostic atheist.

There you go. I just established the relationship between the two positions for you.

Asking "Are you an atheist or an agnostic" is like asking "are you right handed or blonde haired?". It's not an either-or question.

It is not an either/or question because you can be a gnostic atheist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So we are talking supernaturalism, whatever that is? That raises the question about knowledge in general. I'm curious if agnostics believe they can know anything with certainty, religious or not.

 

[Politesse]

I'm curious if agnostics believe they can know anything with certainty, religious or not.

Depends what you mean by "certainty". I don't think anyone operates with absolute certainty in all of their convictions, and if they do I'm not sure I'd care to know them. But I'm not averse to provisionally accepting the truth of a statement if it seems to be supported by available evidence. I do value science, and generally operate as though its conclusions were valid most of the time. But those conclusions are themselves provisional if you accept the totality of the method, and I try to remain open to challenging any idea or belief if presented with a compelling reason to do so. This is easier to say than to do; the brain likes to fall into patterns, and the older I get the more work I must expend on not letting my assumptions run away with the bus. But I think there is immense value in the attempt. The temporal emotional comfort of "certainty" is the enemy of knowledge. When you're "sure you know what you know", you stop asking questions, and when you stop asking questions, you get slowly left behind as the evolution of new knowledge continues on without you.

 

[James Brown]

It is not an either/or question because you can be a gnostic atheist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist.

A gnostic atheist? Is that someone who has knowledge if God exists or not, but doesn't believe that he does?

 

[Hermit]

It is not an either/or question because you can be a gnostic atheist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist.

A gnostic atheist? Is that someone who has knowledge if God exists or not, but doesn't believe that he does?

A gnostic atheist is certain that no God exists.

 

[steve_bank]

There's no other excuse for not knowing that such things are either self contradictory, or contradicted by observed reality.

Oh?

I'm always after some sort of material evidence for atheism, something I woud be most curious to see but none can ever seem to provide. Atheists are very good at demonstrating why they believe theistic beliefs to be wrong (usually by dint of cherrry-picking particular beliefs that clearly contradict an empirical observation), but are not capable of showing that their own perspective best explains... well, anything. Such an argument would take me out of the agnostic camp on the God question if it were convincing. But I'm not impressed by someone's ability to spot logical flaws in other people's religions. This is easily done. Religious people do it to each other all the time. It's low hanging fruit. Justifying your own perspective rationally is much more difficult. Most atheists struggle to even define their worldview without reference to theism, in fact, which makes it rather difficult to evaluate let alone test any claims they might make.

What is the material basis for rejecting the Loch Ness Monster?

What sets religion apart is the outright hrm it continues to do.

Ateist has no meaning oter than rejecting a belief in gods.

Like all human soical organizations, orgnized atheism can and does become religious like. Atheists quote Dawkins much like Christians quote Jesus. Some quote Chomsky as if he were a mystical prophet.

But then I'd assume that would be obvious to a cultural anthropologist.

There is a thread on the hypothesis that science proves a god can not exist. Some actually believe that, but then all humans are fundamntaly the same.

 

[Politesse]

What is the material basis for rejecting the Loch Ness Monster?

At the moment, a paucity of the evidence you would expect to see if there were an icthyosaur in the Loch.

What sets religion apart is the outright hrm it continues to do

Religion can certainly be harmful, though I think combatting that harm is best accomplished by understanding the circumstances that create radicalism and violence, as opposed to a blind fight against a barely understood ideology.

 

[James Brown]

It is not an either/or question because you can be a gnostic atheist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist.

A gnostic atheist? Is that someone who has knowledge if God exists or not, but doesn't believe that he does?

A gnostic atheist is certain that no God exists.

Would belief enter into such a scenario then? I'm 100% certain that I don't have six fingers on my left hand. Would it be valid for me to then say, "And I don't believe that I have six fingers on my left hand either."

 

[rousseau]

The traditional idea of a 'God' is pretty boring, imo. In Ancient communities it was a place-holder in lieu of any other explanation, but is now so entrenched in our culture that it's self-validating, and has framed the conversation. But if you were an outsider looking in it'd seem absolutely ridiculous.

Agnosticism still appeals to me, though, when you completely remove Abrahamic religion from the equation. Fundamentally it's a way of saying 'I don't know why I exist', which is a true statement, and will likely always be a true statement for our species.

 

[southernhybrid]

Jesus F Christ! How many times do we have to have this silly argument?. I'm not at all afraid to refer to myself as a strong atheist. To me, the idea that gods exist is as absurd as the belief that garden fairies, gargoyles, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and so on exist. It's mythology. It's all mythology. I get that humans have always been attracted to mythology. I've read Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth". If you need mythology in your life, that's okay with me, assuming you don't use it to do any harm, or judge those who don't share your beliefs. Mythology can be used for good or bad, just like most any ideology. But, there is no way or no reason to try and prove that no gods exist because the concept is so primitive and silly. I see the concept of god as a relic from the past when humans were very superstitious.

I really like garden fairies though. They are so cute. I don't think they really exist but I can't prove it. Like gods, they can exist in our imagination, but not in real life unless one is delusional or on drugs.

Okay. I won't bother y'all again. Have fun!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Would belief enter into such a scenario then? I'm 100% certain that I don't have six fingers on my left hand. Would it be valid for me to then say, "And I don't believe that I have six fingers on my left hand either."

Thanks. That's what I'm getting at.

If you are agnostic then it's possible you really do have six fingers on your left hand. Essentially you can't know how many fingers you have on your left hand, only be very certain of your conviction that there are not six fingers. That's strange to me.

What we have is an unrecognized or perhaps anosognostic double standard, one for gods and one for non gods. That's strange too. But I suppose it's there because of culture and how much a part of culture these memes are, and the fact that we have imaginations and enjoy pretending, not to mention that such a position has been selected for over the millenia.

 

[bilby]

It's quite possible to be an agnostic and an atheist, as captured by the phrase "I don't think there is a god, but I am not sure". But the two positions aren't related.

1) In the absence of empirical evidence substantiating the existence of any supernatural entity I lack a belief in any such. That makes me an atheist by definition.
2) Proof or disproof of the existence of any supernatural entity is beyond the purview of empiricism. As an empiricist, that makes me agnostic about existence of supernatural entities.
3) Ergo, that makes me an agnostic atheist.

There you go. I just established the relationship between the two positions for you.

Asking "Are you an atheist or an agnostic" is like asking "are you right handed or blonde haired?". It's not an either-or question.

It is not an either/or question because you can be a gnostic atheist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist.

Yes. That's exactly what I was saying, thanks for clarifying my point.

 

[bilby]

It is not an either/or question because you can be a gnostic atheist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist or an agnostic theist.

A gnostic atheist? Is that someone who has knowledge if God exists or not, but doesn't believe that he does?

A gnostic atheist is certain that no God exists.

Would belief enter into such a scenario then? I'm 100% certain that I don't have six fingers on my left hand. Would it be valid for me to then say, "And I don't believe that I have six fingers on my left hand either."

Yes, of course that would be valid. It's bleeding obvious, and most people wouldn't waste their time explicitly saying it, but it's still a fact.

 

[abaddon]

The traditional idea of a 'God' is pretty boring, imo. In Ancient communities it was a place-holder in lieu of any other explanation, but is now so entrenched in our culture that it's self-validating, and has framed the conversation. But if you were an outsider looking in it'd seem absolutely ridiculous.

Agnosticism still appeals to me, though, when you completely remove Abrahamic religion from the equation. Fundamentally it's a way of saying 'I don't know why I exist', which is a true statement, and will likely always be a true statement for our species.

Yes. The imagery of myths are meant as a helpful face put on the mystery of existence. People can't orient in a reality bigger than their minds can grasp. So it makes sense to personalize it some, put familiar images on it to convey what ways you can relate and connect to the more-than-human reality. The trick is to remember "these are just helpful icons, signs, place-holders".

Fundies can't hack it though. The images are mistaken for the real thing, the stories are mistaken for history, the place-holder ("God") for the totality of existence gets twisted into a dude in the sky. So they take the effort to stay humble in the face of the totality of all being, and shit all over it.

But then ideological atheists have their own way of fleeing the mystery into over-simple stories. And for defenders of reason they're not very good at it. Watch the posts here for oversimple binary thinking and you'll see many examples. You're either an irreligious atheist or you must be scientifically illiterate. Either science has made you feel certain about how all reality is or you're a buffoon who doesn't even know how many heads or fingers you have. That's fundy-ism too.

 

[rousseau]

The traditional idea of a 'God' is pretty boring, imo. In Ancient communities it was a place-holder in lieu of any other explanation, but is now so entrenched in our culture that it's self-validating, and has framed the conversation. But if you were an outsider looking in it'd seem absolutely ridiculous.

Agnosticism still appeals to me, though, when you completely remove Abrahamic religion from the equation. Fundamentally it's a way of saying 'I don't know why I exist', which is a true statement, and will likely always be a true statement for our species.

Yes. The imagery of myths are meant as a helpful face put on the mystery of existence. People can't orient in a reality bigger than their minds can grasp. So it makes sense to personalize it some, put familiar images on it to convey what ways you can relate and connect to the more-than-human reality. The trick is to remember "these are just helpful icons, signs, place-holders".

Fundies can't hack it though. The images are mistaken for the real thing, the stories are mistaken for history, the place-holder ("God") for the totality of existence gets twisted into a dude in the sky. So they take the effort to stay humble in the face of the totality of all being, and shit all over it.

But then ideological atheists have their own way of fleeing the mystery into over-simple stories. And for defenders of reason they're not very good at it. Watch the posts here for oversimple binary thinking and you'll see many examples. You're either an irreligious atheist or you must be scientifically illiterate. Either science has made you feel certain about how all reality is or you're a buffoon who doesn't even know how many heads or fingers you have. That's fundy-ism too.

To me it's starting to feel like literal God belief, and the following of institutionalized religion, is just a thin veneer over a more vague awareness of the divine. It's hard for a person of any belief system (or lack thereof - atheism) to just .. exist .. and not be awestruck by the experience they're having on some level.

Christians call it God, Atheists call it the material universe - but it's the same experience - we're in awe of the world we live in. Many Christians have just never clarified or fully understood the source or character of their own beliefs. They see how beautiful the world is, they see the presence of God in it, and that's enough for them.

And I agree, ideological atheists are very similar, they cling to the veneer over top of the divine (reason, science, progress) - but underneath the veneer the raw, visceral experience is pretty much the same.