Talk:Agnostic atheism

Problematic sourcing
At RSN Cline Austin was found to not be a WP:RS - I am removing sourcing to him in the hope that higher quality sources can be found. un☯mi 02:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is almost wholly unsourced - and the sources that are mentioned are very poor indeed. un</b><b style="color:#537">☯</b><b style="color:#437">m</b><b style="color:#337">i</b></i> 21:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Examples Section
I am having a hard time understanding the justification for the examples section. The Croall lectures may have a use as a source ( I'll admit that I haven't looked closely at it ) but what is the relevance of how a fiction author has used the 2 words together? It seems a poor source for an encyclopedic entry on the subject. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#774">u</b><b style="color:#673">n</b><b style="color:#573">☯</b><b style="color:#473">m</b><b style="color:#373">i</b></i> 02:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

History Section
In reading http://nus.academia.edu/LukeOSullivan/Papers/1056478/Article_Robert_Flint_Theologian_Philosopher_of_History_and_Historian_of_Philosophy it seems clear that Robert Flint was vehemently opposed to agnosticism and that many of his writings were based on polemics. While it has little on the work in question, it makes it clear that he saw agnosticism as a danger to be averted, and there are examples of scathing criticism of a similar work of his by the name of Socialism. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#535">u</b><b style="color:#434">n</b><b style="color:#334">☯</b><b style="color:#234">m</b><b style="color:#134">i</b></i> 07:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Given:

I find that we need better sourcing to support us having an article. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#994">u</b><b style="color:#893">n</b><b style="color:#793">☯</b><b style="color:#693">m</b><b style="color:#593">i</b></i> 23:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand where you are coming from here. Robert Flint is certainly critical of agnosticism - I've got his book and can certainly confirm that.  But how does that mean that his use of the terminology has no value in an overview of the history of a concept?   --Dannyno (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to say that it doesn't have value to the article, but that since it is a highly polemical source that seeks to discredit agnosticism we should take care in how we use it. We should at the very least make it clear that Flint was a Theist and that he had a particular motivation that informed his writing. Currently we are presenting his definition as though he was a disinterested neutral party. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#911">u</b><b style="color:#810">n</b><b style="color:#710">☯</b><b style="color:#610">m</b><b style="color:#510">i</b></i> 03:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent essay-style edits to lead section
The following are the issues that caused me to revert recent edits by User:Frmrjrhd87:
 * Using essay style rather than wikified prose; this is probably the smallest of the issues
 * Almost none of the added information belongs in the lead of the article; please see WP:LEAD
 * Almost all of the information is original research
 * Almost all of the sources fail to meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources and were not put in wikipedia format for references

Bertrand Russel Source
Try as I might, I can't find mention of either agnostic or ateapostist in the source, the relevance to the current article seems very dubious. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;"><b style="color:#724">u</b><b style="color:#623">n</b><b style="color:#523">☯</b><b style="color:#423">m</b><b style="color:#323">i</b></i> 02:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Significant holes in sourcing and defintions of this page.
I generally avoid any sort of editing in wikipedia as doing so would require I actually learn how the site demands I cite... So I'll post it here in talk, especially since I haven't posted something like this before.

The term "Agnostic Atheism" may be deemed an incorrect combination of conflicting terms. Reading through the archive topic I see these points have been brought up but typically in an inflammatory or poorly cited manner and so were unusuable. Still, the conflict of solid definitions of Atheism (there is a potential for it to include just lack of belief rather than belief in non-existence) and the potential conflict of these terms should be mentioned in the article at the very least, if not entirely used to debunk the use of these terms together.

Agnosticism, according to Thomas Henry Huxley who coined the phrase in the first place, is specifically the refusal to pick a side until evidence should be presented and even doubts the possibility that such evidence for or against the existence of a deity may be obtained at this present time or perhaps any time in the future.

Letter from Huxley to Charles Kingsley on September 23, 1860


 * When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. [... ] . So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. [… ] To my great satisfaction the term took.

(Also referrenced here on wikipedia but the outside source is not listed in the agnosticism page despite being referrenced, only the date and recepient of September 23, 1860 to Charles Kingsley is mentioned. So I'm presenting it here and you can put it there if you so wish)

So Agnosticism was actually created as a position to specifically counter such belief systems. In this light, to marry Agnosticism to Atheism or to Theism is to make it cease to be Agnosticism. It is commonly combined with those terms but it is done so incorrectly and perhaps out of ignorance of the conflict. Agnosticism is not a creed, but an anti-creed against all the "isms" that may only be accepted by rejecting alternative possibilities that may be unlikely but could still be valid. It is apparent in the context that Huxley saw Atheism as the belief that God does not exist (rather than including a lack of belief of either side) and Theism as the belief that God does. With the creation of this term, Agnosticism was intended to catch everything between 100% belief and 100% disbelief in a deity or deities.

Richard Dawkins (A prominent Atheist) saw this problem when he tried to define his own beliefs because he is so very close to 100% belief that God does not exist that he may as well be an Atheist and yet Agnosticism would technically be the right word to define him if he were to be willing to accept it.

From the Agnosticsm page


 * According to Richard Dawkins, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero we are willing to rate the probability of existence for any given god-like entity. Since in practice it is not worth contrasting a zero probability with one that is nearly indistinguishable from zero, he prefers to categorize himself as a "de facto atheist". He specifies his position by means of a scale of 1 to 7. On this scale, 1 indicates "100 per cent probability of God." A person ranking at 7 on the scale would be a person who says "I know there is no God..." Dawkins places himself at 6 on the scale, which he characterizes as "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there", but leaning toward 7. About himself, Dawkins continues that "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."[46] Dawkins also identifies two categories of agnostics; Temporary Agnostics in Practice (TAPs), and Permanent Agnostics in Principle (PAPs). Dawkins considers temporary agnosticism an entirely reasonable position, but views permanent agnosticism as "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice."[47]

This is why his 7 point scale includes De Facto Atheism/Theism just prior to the 100% disbelief/belief positions to account for himself and to remove the ambiguity found in Agnosticism. The existence of agnosticism was to separate out belief that God does not exist from nonbelief in existence or non-existence of God.

Bertrand Russell is incorrectly cited in the main page as a proponent of Agnostic Atheism. Not only did he not say "ateapotist" as far as I can tell, but the word appears to have been generated later to referrence his celestial teapot analogy in much the same way Pastafarianism is used to refer to members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Bertrand wrote about agnosticism not being atheism. He believed, as Dawkins does, that agnosticism may be so very close to atheism as to be as good as atheism, but still not.

This is Bertrand in an interview from 1953
 * Are agnostics atheists?
 * No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

The definition of Agnostic Atheism is also a bit of evidence against the combination of the terms as it leads to redundancy. From the main page and the Agnosticism Page


 * Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

This is redundant because the definition of Agnostic Atheist is merely the definition of Agnosticism. An Agnostic does not believe in God because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. This means that there is no intrinsic difference between an Agnostic and an Agnostic Atheist and so the suffix of Atheist should not be used.

The definition of Agnosticism from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy is
 * In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2] In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.

So even the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy contrasts Agnosticism with Theism and Atheism, establishing a conflict. Please note the definition of Atheism from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. They have defined Atheism as affirmation of the non-existence.

Rowe, WL. ”Atheism”, in Craig. E Routledge, Ed., Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New York, 1998.:
 * “Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.”1

According to this, to combine a term that refuses to affirm any position without evidence proving them with a term that affirms a position is logically illogical.

This definition is not necessarily the only correct one depending on how you view this encyclopedia's credibility. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, for example, includes both lack of belief and affirmation of disbelief. Some sources also claim that there is no actual concensus on the term.


 * Runes, Dagobert D.(editor) (1942 edition). Dictionary of Philosophy. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co. Philosophical Library. ISBN 0-06-463461-2. Retrieved 2011-04-09. "(a) the belief that there is no God; (b) Some philosophers have been called "atheistic" because they have not held to a belief in a personal God. Atheism in this sense means "not theistic". The former meaning of the term is a literal rendering. The latter meaning is a less rigorous use of the term though widely current in the history of thought"

I suspect that the potential of Atheism to include lack of belief is what has led to misuse of the term in conjunction with Agnosticism. This is perhaps because prior to Agnosticism there was only Theism/Pantheism or Atheism and so Atheism was a catch all for anything not believing in Deities. The redundancy of the term combined with all the evidence presented should be enough to plead my case on the need for such a referrence. I apologize that I have not learned Wiki-formatting enough to feel comfortable posting this myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightknight77 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I will add that if the definition of the term Agnostic is changed to the colloquial definition of the term Agnostic rather than the religious definition then the combination would at least be feasible. A person can be Atheist, they can even affirm belief that there is no God and yet deny that we can know that there is no God. However, the definition here combines the religious definition of Agnostic with the religious definition of Atheism which is entirely illogical and this would be the broadest, most general criticism of this page I can supply.


 * The meaning of “agnosticism” has broadened since Huxley coined it. Today, it is seldom used in the original Huxleyan sense. Richard Dawkins has called himself both an agnostic and an atheist, so he would presumably disagree that the terms are exclusive. Bertrand Russell did consider the terms exclusive, while some of his contemporaries did not.
 * But all this strays from the topic: Since this article is about “agnostic atheism”, perforce we must mean the modern sense of “agnostic” and the modern sense of “atheism” by which this term is meaningful, not the outmoded senses of the words which would make it a contradiction. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Richard Dawkins defines agnosticism as going all the way up as close as you can get to 0% belief that God does not exist and at 0% is where Atheism lies. This is the source I cited from him above, particularly his 7-point scale that differentiates between Atheist and De Facto Atheist.

To reiterate Dawkins from the larger quote I referrenced of him above:
 * "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

This is the entire reason why Dawkins felt the need to make the scale, because the religious position of Agnosticism is intended to be a catch all between beleif that God does exist (100% belief, or Theism) and belief that he does not exist (0% belief, or Atheism).

2. Modern Sense? Do you mean the colloquial sense of the word as opposed to the Theological sense of the word? The theological sense is the one being used here. Read the article, it says that the person is an atheist because they don't believe in God and an Agnostic because they don't believe one can gain proof of His existence or non-existence.

a. This is actually the exact definition of Agnosticism. Why should Atheism be slapped on the end to render no change? Should there be a category for Christians called Christian Theism?

b. Even if I am to ignore that the article says the person IS an Agnostic which is a theology in itself which includes the lack of belief in the absense of evidence as part of its "tenets" if it can be called such, the colloquial use of agnostic is that you are undecided on a topic. Like "Mary is agnostic towards string theory because she doesn't think there's enough evidence for or against it." You are combining the lack of evidence with the existence of belief. This is logically illogical. Are you saying that Agnostic Atheism is guilty of faith? That they have taken a position for which they admit no evidence exists? This is highly contradictory and very poorly sourced.

So again, what sources are being used to counter Huxley, Russell, and Dawkins. Why are they more legitimate sources? We've already established, for example, that Robert Flint is an advocate against the existence of Agnosticism as a valid class at all.


 * The present work, then, is not an historical, colorless estimate of the part played by Agnosticism in modern thought; it is a partisan work, destined to refute the agnostic. source = P. E. Winter. "Agnosticism by Robert Flint, Review". The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Apr., 1903), pp. 254-255.

Alexander James Harrison is just the part of his work where he is distinguishing terms to debate against them, not as new religious beliefs. The rest of his paper is then to explain to Christians how to witness to individuals of each particular persuasion. His distinction then, isn't to actually establish new sections of faith, but to establish which witnessing technique to use against which mindset. For example, he wishes to bring what he would call "Agnostic Christians" back into the fold. What an audacious use of sources to propagate the misuse of terms.

The actual agnostic and atheist sources I prevented are not only more valid for the intent of their works, but from their point of views being an insider looking out and not an insider trying and failing to look in. Even the Betrand Russell quote here is flagrantly misused, assigning what seems to be a misquoted "Agnostic Ateapotist" to him that he not only never said but would have been very much against as you seem to agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightknight77 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Lightknight77 (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes, Dawkins considers himself both a "temporary agnostic in practice" and a "de facto atheist". You've confirmed why I said he does not support your contention of a conflict between the terms.
 * 2. "Do you mean the colloquial sense of the word as opposed to the Theological sense of the word?" No, I mean in the sense of "uncertainty about the existence of deities".
 * a) "Why should Atheism be slapped on the end to render no change?" Because both theists and atheists can be agnostics. Theists can be agnostic too (ex. Fideism).
 * b) "You are combining the lack of evidence with the existence of belief. This is logically illogical." Withholding belief until the evidence is in is completely logical.
 * I'm often asked the question, "Do you think there is extraterrestrial intelligence?" I give the standard arguments — there are a lot of places out there, and use the word billions, and so on. And then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course there is as yet no compelling evidence for it. And then I'm asked, "Yeah, but what do you really think?" I say, "I just told you what I really think." "Yeah, but what's your gut feeling?" But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it's okay to reserve judgment until the evidence is in.
 * — Carl Sagan, "The Burden of Skepticism" (1987)
 * "Are you saying that Agnostic Atheism is guilty of faith?" Of course not.
 * "So again, what sources are being used to counter Huxley, Russell, and Dawkins." Right now, I'm using your same exact Dawkins source to counter you.
 * "Alexander James Harrison is just the part of his work where he is distinguishing terms to debate against them, not as new religious beliefs." And his distinction between agnostic atheists from agnostic theists is, appropriately and properly, used to cite a sentence distinguishing agnostic atheists from agnostic theists.
 * "Even the Betrand Russell quote here is flagrantly misused, assigning what seems to be a misquoted "Agnostic Ateapotist" to him that he not only never said but would have been very much against as you seem to agree." Both you and unomi seem to have misinterpreted scare quotes around "ateapotist" to indicate a quote from Russell. We should reword that sentence to avoid that potential misreading. But I disagree that he would be "very much against" that description; Russell himself used his teapot to illustrate his agnostic atheism:
 * "I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."
 * — Bertrand Russell, letter to Mr. Major (1958)
 * ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

what is the term for someone who believes god only exists because people BELIEVE god does/doesn't exist? ie it exists ,if for no other reason, than at least because people think about it at all??? also what if...the criteria for proving evidence of such an existence as god is the paradox that makes god unprovable..conceptually being a limitless being and all?? Where does that concept leave ignosticism when confronted with the "believer" as "evidence" of god's existence? 71.239.87.234 (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can think of a few terms for someone who believes that disbelief in God causes him to exist. "Muddle-headed" for one. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Atheistic agnostic
In my humble opinion, there is another term very similar: Atheistic agnostic. --Diogenes2000 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

positions

 * mainstream agnosticism is open to the possibility of magic; false-agnosticism is based on linguistic distortions (the false claim that etymology is tautological to definition in all terms)
 * axiomaticity is incomplete in any axiomatic system, but any new axiom will always be well postulated; no axiom can be magical = structureless
 * magic has no structure nor attributes, thus it's not attributable to specific and substantial things and phenomena
 * Magic not only cannot be formally postulated. It also doesn't exist/doesn't represent an ontic state. Arbitrary theoretical vagueness doesn’t correspond to any possible physical state.
 * Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye erroneously claim that "metaphysical naturalists who don't have the final theory in physics" should be merged with "people open to the possibility of magic" and that merged group is the deGrasse-Nye-agnostics or Nyegnostics (they use the taken term agnosticism and agnostics but they term Nyegnosticism/Nyegnostics is better to differentiate them from the mainstream agnostics). Metaphysical naturalists = agnostic atheists = philosophical materialists do not agree with the Nyegnostic view.
 * Causality as defined in physics, can be violated between superluminally receding observers; but the macrostate coherence of the wave function of the universe (or multiverse during extreme phenomena like Big Bangs) remains (the macrostate coherence of the multiverse is a higher order Everettian/many-worldly [probabilistic] causality). Max Tegmark has a theory of hypernymous cosmology (superordinate because it's about many universes, and it includes pre-explosive cosmogony/the before the Big Bang state. Humanity doesn't have the final theory. Science accepts deletions, corrections and additions. But any addition has to be rigorous.