Talk:Agnostic theism

Not POV
Many people have different views of Agnostic theism, Agnostic, and Theism. Each version of agnostic theism needs to be presented.

For example:


 * According to Theism, the opinion that gods or deities exist, and Agnosticism is that exsistance unknown or inherently unknowable. Belief defined as a conviction of the truth of a proposition without its verification. Agnosticism does not violate this, and this definition of theism does not violate agnosticism.


 * According to Fideism this logic statement was used:
 * Christian theology teaches that people are saved by faith in the Christian god. (i.e. trust in the empirically unprovable).
 * But, if the Christian God's existence can be proven, either empirically or logically, to that extent faith becomes unnecessary or irrelevant.
 * Therefore, if Christian theology is true, no immediate proof of the Christian God's existence is possible.


 * This modus tollens follows:
 * 1. Faith is important.
 * 2. If Existence of Christian God can be proven, faith is not important.
 * Therefore
 * 4. Existence of Christian God cannot be proven.


 * see also, Sola fide


 * According to Faith "Faith, by its very nature, requires belief outside of known fact." or is this taking out of context?


 * According to Existence of God: Agnosticism "Agnostics may or may not still believe in gods based on Fideilistic convictions."


 * According to Theologies opposed to fideism, other christian views such as Catholicism, Theism requires 100% belief with no doubt at all, and Agnosticism is a form of doubt.

People have ranges of definitions of Agnosticism ranging from narrow as apathetic agnosticsm or braod enough to able to belief without knowing.

People have ranges of definitions of Atheism ranging from believing in there is no god, to withholding belief, to even the slightest doubt.

Agnosticism and atheism can over lap, but not always. The same should be true for agnosticism and theism.

Other views are welcome. Are these enough verifiable sources for agnostic theism or do they need to be links outside wikipedia? At least it's consistant with other pages.

I've added to See also
 * Fideism
 * Truth
 * Knowledge
 * Sola fide
 * Doubt: Philosophy and ethics
 * Faith
 * Existence of God: Agnosticism

--Tsinoyboi 03:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone read this as a reference? http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/theism.htm --Tsinoyboi 02:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agnostic Theism My version so far. Read the notes, too. Does it meet WP:V and WP:OR? maybe not yet


 * citing from "about.com" is like citing from a blog. Somerset219 04:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

how is it like a blog? does it not qualify Verifiability? wanna take it to the admin?--Tsinoyboi 06:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Contains Original Research
"The position" is definitely original research. --Tsinoyboi 07:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to delete it. I just left it in there to try to give some explanation that wasn't biased up the ass. Somerset219 04:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Proposition Diagram
It's interesting... though I don't quite understand the purple section (combined of truths and beliefs, but not knowledge). Is it meant to be "Unjustified True Beliefs"? Should we talk about that (since it is mentioned in passing?). Should we update the picture to say that? Should this discussion be on the epistemology page? --Michael 20:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Purple section represents those beliefs we hold that are true, but which we cannot claim to know because we don't have sufficient justification to know them. I made the image originally for the Epistemology section to replace a previous one with worse resolution. However, I am unwilling to change it because the image provokes thought about the difference between a true belief and knowledge, which is precisely the point of Epistemology since Plato. HTH

The above response was written by User:AlecMcEachran, that also included the text below onto the main article:


 * Agnostic Theism is sometimes paralleled with the process employed by science called [[Philosophy of Science|Scientific Method]. It is supposed that when a scientist asserts a hypothesis, she believes in it faithfully. Her belief might be true, but it is not known, since it's truth has not been established justifiably. Agnostic Theists sometimes claim that their belief holds the same status as such a scientific conjecture. However, when the Agnostic Theist claims to hold his beliefs without 'knowing' them, he does so because of the overwhelming unjustifiability of a belief in God. On the contrary, the scientist (in best practise) holds her hypothesis to be conjecture even if she has overwhelming evidence in support of it, because the principles of science are to recognise its own fallibility. What is interesting in this case is that although the Agnostic Theist wishes to admit the impossibility of knowledge of God, nevertheless, they wish to raise the status of their beliefs in Him by comparison with science. This could be argued to be an attempt at oblique justification of their beliefs.

AlecMcEachran, do you realize that you put claims about a "scientific status" of the belief in god in the mouth of the agnostic theists, while there was no indication whatsoever of such claims in the article before your edits? Do you have any citation or reference of agnostic theists claiming what you described above? Also, when you say that "the Agnostic Theist claims to hold his beliefs without 'knowing' them, he does so because of the overwhelming unjustifiability of a belief in God." this seems to be an oversimplification of a very complex issue. --Leinad ¬ pois não? 18:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Leinad, my apologies if I have over-stepped the mark.

In my honest opinion, the previous article asserted a parallel between scientific methodology and agnostic theism. The scientist, it claimed, believes her hypothesis, confirms it, and so gains knowlege. This overlooks the necessary role of falsifiability within science, and so the articule allows readers to believe that 'empirical confirmation' plays a role in moving tentative scientific beliefs into the sphere of knowledge. It then goes on to discuss the role of faith in this process; a scientist must have faith in her beliefs. In the article such a faith in a scientific hypothesis was equated with an agnostic-theist's faith. So, implicitly the belief claims of each view are given equal status. My problem is that while scientific theories are falsifiable, necessarily a belief in God is not. The role of faith here is quite different in the two cases. The scientist holds faith in her abilities to understand the world and the accuracy of her data, but she does not have faith in a metaphysical sense, that her hypothesis could express truth. To my mind, the agnostic theist asserts a metaphysical belief in God. The role of faith for the scientist is instrumental, while the role of faith for the agnostic theist is protective. To my mind the position of agnostic theism as given in the article, was to elevate a theistic viewpoint by association with science and classical epistemology, even if this is not explicitly asserted.

This was - again incompletely - the point I was trying to make, though I will admit that my edit was a little clumsy. I am thankful for the telling-off, though believe that simple reversion to the previous version of the article will continue to propogate a misleading view. -- AlecMcEachran 23:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time that I've edited a Wikipedia article, so I hope I'm following proper protocol. I changed the part of the article that said, "This dynamic is typified in the Bible verse Mark 9:24 that reads 'I believe, Lord help thou my unbelief,' showing that even one of the original twelve apostles in Christianity, although a theist, experienced moments of agnostic theism." I removed the part about one of the original twelve apostles, since according to the gospel of Mark it was not one of the twelve that said that, but the father of a demon posessed boy. --Hencethus 00:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

VERY,VERY USEFULL ARTICLE,CONGATULATIONS FOR IT,BECAUSE IT MADE ME THINK AND IT IS VERY WELL WRITTEN,BECAUSE MY ENGLISH IN NOT VERY GOOD,BUT I STILL UNDERSTOOD EVERYTHINGDzoni 02:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

merge Christian atheist
christian atheist is pretty much point of view, and has no credible sources. the paragraph itself makes no sense. It is a short page and is exactly the same ideology as agnostic theist, except less logical (theist atheist). I thought if I put it up for deletion, I might get an uproar, at least now it's plausible that it stays in wikipedia. Somerset219 00:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah this would explain why "The position" conflicts with how I would define agnostic theism. I don't see how agnostic theism is of temporary doubt. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. Beleif can also be concidered subjective opinion. Couldn't someone say they believe there may be some divinity but not be sure (don't know or not possible to know) call themself an agnostic theist? Even looking up Theism, it's "roughly, the opinion that gods or deities exist". I guess i would agree that there's probably little to no credible sources except other pages on wikipedia and the original definitions of agnostic, theism, and agnostic theism, but I think Agnostic theism and Christian atheism should be distingished, if not on seperate pages then somewhere in the article. --Tsinoyboi 03:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The criticisms seem to be more about Christian atheism. Most definitions of belief are that something is held as true, but there's also the definition that it's an opinion. What do you call it when someone is Agnostic but thinks there's a god or gods? This may be more of an opinion. What do u call it if someone believes existence of a god or gods is true but believes knowing truth is impossible? Is that not agnostic theism? What do u call it when someone absolutely believes in a god 100% but claims there's no way to prove it? Can one be theistic if they believe there's any possibility of being wrong? Can there be theistic agnosticism, instead? Where does blind faith fall when the person will actually call their own faith blind? Where does it fall when the person doesn't call it bind? These still are hard to verify, but are "the position" and the first part "criticism" verified, either? --Tsinoyboi 04:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As a paradox, does that necessarily mean it's self contradicting or possibly not? at least sometimes --Tsinoyboi 04:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

what? were you asking a question, or giving a statement? Somerset219 04:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
What has been done with this page in between 31 July and 4 August? Major deletions and weird additions were made, apparently without the awareness of the community, (and certainly without the awareness of the editors whose work was thrown away). I don’t have the time now, but maybe I'll try to fix it latter. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 19:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Some editors were upset that this page wasn't deleted, so they deleted huge chunks of the article instead. Stev0 21:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Granted a lot of editing was done, however all of it was legit, please see the history. The majority of the article was not cited, made false claims, and had major POV. This is very common for any religious, philosophical, and ideological claims, this one just happened to have few editors so it wasn't promptly removed. On a side note: please see about claiming ownership of an article: without the awareness of the community, (and certainly without the awareness of the editors whose work was thrown away). Somerset219 05:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The subject of the article contradicts itself, but so do many other articles too, if one wants to be political about religion it may be useful to gather all the pseudo-philosophical info under one subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.105.63 (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Postion of Margaret Atwood
please see here [] and here []. Margaret Atwood never asserts herself as an agnostic theist, but rather a "strict agnostic". Somerset219 05:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes
While many (but not all) of the criticisms expressed by User:Somerset219 were true, I find it horrendous that so much good material was simply deleted instead of being enhanced. I curently don't have the time but here are a few of the major points I would like to draw your attention to: ... and more but I don't have the time and will to go on; I probably won't come back Jules.LT 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of a position that is less common but far more characteristic of agnostic theism: those who believe in God but, on epistemological grounds or suchlike, assert that they do not KNOW god. This might be acompanied with the interesting twist of belief in God's unprovability.
 * The epistemological explanation for why knowledge is NOT belief will let people read the article and think it illogical and want to throw it away far more easily; believe me I've been in some such debates.
 * Why agnostics as they are generally pictured tend to lean more towards atheism than theism is of interest. That was the purpose of the paragraph mentionning Occam's razor. The Scientific method might be worth mentionning.

Ok i just noticed someone added What does that even mean? not that it's wrong to be there. I'd just like an explanation. might as well use 6 and 7
 * In James 1:8 the Bible states that "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."


 * James 1:6 But let him ask in faith, without any doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven by the wind and tossed.


 * James 1:7 For let that man not think that he will receive anything from the Lord.


 * James 1:8 He is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

or the whole 10 lines

1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are in the Dispersion: Greetings. 2 Count it all joy, my brothers, when you fall into various temptations, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 4 Let endurance have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. 5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach; and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith, without any doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven by the wind and tossed. 7 For let that man not think that he will receive anything from the Lord. 8 He is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways. 9 But let the brother in humble circumstances glory in his high position; 10 and the rich, in that he is made humble, because like the flower in the grass, he will pass away.

So.. it looks like double-minded in 1-8 is refering to faith and having no doubt in 1-6. But it doesn't say anything about knowing. Or is knowing without having doubt? Can you be without doubt and still say u don't know? that sounds possible "i don't know but i don't doubt it"

Is theism only refering to christianity? or does it not matter anyway if only christianity is right? i don't think that would be NPOV

By the way, isn't God supposed to be beyond our comprehension? and if so, how can u know what god is if it's god is beyond our comprehension? and agnosticism is probably used more to say about knowing if god exsists, but i guess knowing what is god is part of knowing ultimate reality. hmm.. --Tsinoyboi 07:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not make original research. If you want to compare atheism and religion then by all means there is a page for that... Somerset219 03:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC).

What's the point in having a bible quote when it's not translated or shown how it's even relavent to the context? is it original research to include the rest of the paragraph it was used in? Aren't all your changes original research? --Tsinoyboi 06:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Image
I am at a loss as to why the image has been removed from this article? The article refers to classical epistemology, and this is a very well respected means of undestanding the problem of Justified True Belief which comes from the Plato/Gettier tradition. The removal of it by User:Somerset219 was unjustified and poorly thought out. I am a Masters graduate in Philosophy, and I stand by the validity of the image and its usefulness in understanding these concepts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlecMcEachran (talk • contribs).

wow... a masters in philosophy and you can't figure out why the image was deleted... perhaps you should get a refund. Somerset219 03:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This was the reason given for the deletion of the image. ''Image is not accurate; by the very links it cites. knowledge can be a belief/there is no distinction between truth & knowledge" the image is misleading and over simplified. It has no bearing in the context of the article. Somerset219 04:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Somerset, do you even know how to use the history on wikipedia? i didn't make those posts, it was AlecMcEachran. --Tsinoyboi 02:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway.. who says there's no distinction between truth and knowledge? on Knowledge and Epistimology it talks about seperation of the two. One can have a belief in something and not know it. Agnostic theists would put god(s) in the the section where truth and belief overlap but outside knowledge--Tsinoyboi 02:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Somerset219, there is scarcely a need to personalise the issue, but rather than reject my point you attack me, which I suggest reinforces my point that your modifications are poorly thought out. The division between belief and knowledge is well known, and comes from the Platonic tradition in philosophy. Yes, knowledge can be a belief, but the diagram explicitly states that this can be the case; in the Platonic tradition knowledge is a subset of belief, which is what the Venn diagram explicates. There is a distinction between truth and knowledge too; there may well be true propositions that you don't know. In fact, there are, since the proporsition that "there is a distinction between truth and knowledge" is both true, and not known by you. You can dispute the philosophical background if you wish, but to do so you go against the grain of most of the last two-and-a-half thousand years of western philosophy. I should point out that the diagram was originally introduced to me during Profefssor Williamson's Epistemology course at the University of Edinburgh in 1998 (Williamson is now the | Wykeham Professor of Logic at Oxford University), and has been in use for hundreds of years; I merely recreated the image for publication on Wikipedia since it is a good one. AlecMcEachran 12:43 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, and Somerset219 since you claim elsewhere to accept only that which is cited, if you actually want to understand by anger regarding your smug ignorance (that normal civility is suspended is justified given the gross ignorance of my target and his patronising comments above) please could you read Wikipedia's Epistemology post, and then if at all possible look up Theatetus 201, and Meno 98, both of which are cited in. Then, when you finally realise what an ignorant arse you have been, can you please STOP editing posts on the basis that you know better, when just maybe you dont? AlecMcEachran 11:27 19 October 2006 (BST).

I agree. Image is valid according to WP:OR since images that are just illustrating information from a verified source are allowed. --Tsinoyboi 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

MORE deleted material
It appears that somebody wishes to utterly decimate the content on this page. It is now badly written nonsense, and has finally convinced me that spending my time submitting content to Wikipedia is a complete waste of my time; ignorants can delete it on a whim unjustifiably. I do not have the time to waste trying to fight the ignorants, so read the page if you wish, but recognise that it bears only a passing resemblance to its titular concept in its current form. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlecMcEachran (talk • contribs).


 * It think it's safe to say that except for the Indian religions, the articles in wikipedia regarding religion are only of value to Christian or Muslim proselytizers or people who hate Christianity. Don't give up, though! We can change it. Arrow740 01:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh woeth you... it's actually very simple. Put in your info and cite it appropriately, and wala! no more "nonsense". as it stands right now, everything is cited. If you want to come up with your own fantastical ideals on how philosophy should work, I don't think Wikipedia is right for you. Somerset219 03:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Somerset, many articles in Wikipedia still have zero references (see, for example, theism). I also see Wiki articles using non-academic WebPages as reference all the time. I don’t see why the edits by User:Tsinoyboi should be treated differently in an article that is so small (after massive deletions that you made some time ago). I think your persistent deletions here are making the article worse. --Leinad ¬ [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|18px]] »saudações! 05:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see that you two enjoy using unreliable references, but save that "everybody else does it" excuse for your mommy; Wikipedia has standards. A person whose claim to fame is that of a graphic artist does not fit the requirements of WP:RS for this topic, and therefore, the reference "may be removed by any editor". This article is better short than inaccurate. --The Dumbest Man Alive 11:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please remain civil. Thank you. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I’ll make myself clear. More than defending any specific edits, my post above expresses my disagreement with the general way Somerset219 is dealing with the article. Others had already pointed that useful material was removed during the massive deletions he made 2 months ago (after unsuccessfully attempting to delete the entire article from WP). It was especially unfortunate the removal of the explanation of knowledge as justified true belief (the more traditional and mainstream way to understand the term) in favor of a view that appears to understand the term belief as automatically implying knowledge (a definition that was used for claiming that agnostic theism was a “logical fallacy” and a “paradox” in the criticism section). --Leinad ¬ [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|18px]] »saudações! 15:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm making bigger changes. I will also make references --Tsinoyboi 02:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

wow look what i found.. http://www.arikah.com/encyclopedia/Agnostic_theism is this an old version of the wikipedia article? --Tsinoyboi 05:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC) (late sig)

has anyone read Neidhardt, "Personal Knowledge: An Epistemology of Discovery," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Vol. 29, No. 3, September 1977? it looks like it may be a good source to cite from but i haven't read it. --Tsinoyboi 11:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Old Criticism
Looking at the history, I've found the old version of the criticism


 * This position is generally looked down upon both by theists and strong atheists because the agnostic theist remains without sure knowledge willingly. Most people want to be sure that they are in the right, and don't understand that one should give up that certainty. Also, both sides see agnostic theism as a stepstone towards the other.

And to compare and contrast, the current:


 * This position may be seen as a logical fallacy because the agnostic theist is holding a belief, even though he/she is in a state of doubt. In order to believe something, you give a conviction made on knowledge about something you find to be true; in which an agnostic does not do. Additionally, to be in a state of doubt, you make no conviction.

I don't see what's wrong with this original version in regards to WP:NPOV or how the current version is verified.. I tried mixing both versions here


 * This position may be seen by theists and strong atheists as a logical fallacy because agnostic theism is holding a belief without claiming to know. These critics claim that in order to believe something, one gives a conviction made on knowledge about something they believe to be true; in which they claim agnostic do not do. Additionally, they claim having no knowledge, one makes no conviction.

of course, that means the rebuttal won't make as much sense.. but the would fit under Theism as belief in knowing of god(s), Agnosticism as doubt of god --Tsinoyboi 05:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

slight changes to proposed version. I may re-organize the article again soon if i see fit ..then again.. has anyone looked up these words? o well i guess it's just other definitions but where is belief and conviction defined and knowledge? and where is there no distinction between truth & knowledge? I've seen lots of places where they're distinguished. Need a reference? --Tsinoyboi 06:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance of Concept?
The following was also deleted with the edit summary same as stating "many atheists claim that god exist" not a critism; just ignorance of concept


 * Many agnostic theists claim that not only do they not know God exists, but that it is also impossible to know with any certainty whether God exists; then, they are strong agnostics. Note than in that case they believe that God is unprovable, which they might be aware of or not.

How is this stating that many atheists claim that god exsists? Agnosticism is about knowing (epistimology, not beliefs (ontology). Please don't confuse agnosticism with atheism. Agnosticism may sometimes (or most of the time) fit weak atheism, but agnosticism is NOT defined as witholding belief. Can a Christian can have doubts and not be concidered atheist since they still hold the belief? ...not that agnosticism is about doubt. belief is conviction and conviction is being convinced that something is true whether or not it's true. If something is known, then it must be true. Some beliefs can be false so belief doesn't mean knowing. So agnosticism doesn't mean doubting.
 * --Tsinoyboi 08:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article
If someone has the time to make this article thorough, I think it could be great. Arrow740 01:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Agnostic Theism vs Fideism
Isn't Fideism specifically Christian? I don't think Agnostic Theism can only be defined as religious if it's associated to Christianity. Fideism fits with Agnostic theism but I think Agnostic theism is more broad. Unfortunately, I don't know of any documentation that states how general Agnostic theism should be, but I don't think Agnostic theism is the same as Fideism. Or is Fideism not specifically Christian?

--Tsinoyboi 13:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Caption on venn diagram
The current caption implies God does in fact exist. In that diagram "truth" means "that which is true." The purple area is for unjustified true beliefs. For instance a blind man that believes he has green eyes. If the man does in fact have green eyes, then his belief is true even though he cannot justify it. --24.57.157.81 22:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirect?
I was directed here from Christian atheist. Christian atheism is an established minority position which seems not to be discussed here at all. It is represented by thinkers such as the British theologian Don Cupitt, who (apparently) holds the view that the non-existence of an objective deity does not invalidate the Christian religion as a means of guiding human behaviour. It is strictly distinct from Christian agnosticism, which is a form of liberal Christianity which combines uncertainty about God's existence with a Christian allegiance notwithstanding. 193.63.239.165 11:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Puff of logic
About the necessity of faith implying the impossibility of proving God: the request for a citation made me itch to quote Douglas Adams. In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy's fictional universe, the eponymous guide gives this as the main argument for the non-existence of God: --Jules.LT (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Babel Fish could not possibly have developed naturally, and therefore proves the existence of God as its creator. However, as Man points out, God needs faith to exist, and this proof dispels the need for faith, therefore causing God to vanish "in a puff of logic".

validity
This article could be strengthened but incorporating validity along side of justification. This would help further bring in first order logic. To me validity implies propositions that exist without human interpretation while justification implies the requirement for a knowledgeable judge. As shown in the venn, the knowledge circle can't be objectively validated however an individual can justify it subjectively. I'll be investigating the sources for validity references.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Christian [A]gnostics
I'm just wondering about this section: " " Now how exactly does that capital letter change the entire meaning? &mdash; mode.ry 01:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just came here to post the exact same thing. It's a little disconcerting you weren't replied to, and I'm far too lazy to go through the history to see what was originally there. Perhaps "Christian agnostic" is different than "Agnostic Christian", and someone wasn't paying attention. I also found the entire definition to be somewhat lacking, especially the bit about deep roots in Judaism. But I'm not a theologist. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  05:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Two problems with article
60.225.114.230 (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It gives two completely separate definitions of "agnostic theism", and thus is really an article about two completely separate things: "An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the truth or falsehood of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable." vs. "The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the God(s) they believe in.". Which of these two is the article about? Both? They are rather independent positions.
 * 2) It is questionable how coherent this position is. "I believe X but I don't know that X". Well if knowledge is justified true belief, that expands to "I believe X, but believe that either X is false, or that I don't believe X, or that I am not justified in believing X" - all three options seem to commit some variant of Moore's paradox. Believing something, but admitting you aren't justified in believing it, is somewhat paradoxical. Are there any reliable sources containing this criticism? Since I would be surprised if no one had made it, it seems clear to me.

Conflicting terms:
Several people above are mentioning valid criticisms of the combination of these terms. Why was the following criticism removed?


 * This position may be seen as a logical fallacy because the agnostic theist is holding a belief, even though he/she is in a state of doubt. In order to believe something, you give a conviction made on knowledge about something you find to be true; in which an agnostic does not do. Additionally, to be in a state of doubt, you make no conviction.

The problem is that you're combining two religious words that are distinct from eachother. I posted the same point in the talk section of Agnostic Atheism along with a myriad of citation. Agnosticism actually contains within it the refusal to pick a side. Agnostic theism/atheism is not a valid combination of terms for this reason due to the fallacy it presents. Please review these criticisms and at least include them as criticisms of this classification.

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.

Please view my post in the Agnostic Atheism talk page for significant sourcing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Agnostic_atheism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightknight77 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I will also point out that the only source used in this page is George H. Smith from 1979. Does he have some special credential to define this term in ways that disagree with John Huxley, Bertrand Russell, and even more recently Richard Dawkins? The fact that there is only one source listed on Agnostic Theism is deplorable. The other two sources are a Christian Agnostic referrence and some ambiquous source talking about whether or not belief can be true if one cannot know it (the logical fallacy mentioned before). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightknight77 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent move
This page was recently moved to "Theistic agnosticism", with the edit summary that it better reflected our sources. I do not believe that is the case. Which sources were referenced for the move? Thanks! &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The cited quote from Smith says that "agnosticism can be...theistic", suggesting that theistic should be the adjective. The term "theistic agnostic" is used in the entry from the Dictionary of the History of Ideas that appears under "External Links". The cited book titled The Christian Agnostic fits the same pattern. None of the other sources appear to mention either "agnostic theism" or "theistic agnosticism" at all. - Cal Engime (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, our sources do need to be improved. This article is basically just a stub, so more work would certainly help. Looking at google search results, "agnostic theism" yields 20,100 results, while "theistic agnosticism" yields 3,040. Same with google scholar; 47 to 20, google books 1,420 to 284. Variations are about the same: "Agnostic theist": 42,100, "Theistic agnostic": 2,390. Here is a source that discusses it explicitly, and another.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

An agnostic theist does not necessarily "hope" for the existence of such a god.
Though I do not know if anyone actually subscribes to such a belief system, I am certain that if there was someone who believed in an unkind god but thought it not provable, we should still call them agnostic but they would not necessarily hope for their belief to be true.

The opening of the article,

"An agnostic theist hopes in the existence of God, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable"

Is not correct on two fronts. As I've stated above, they need not necessarily "hope" for the existence. Secondly, the link to God and the capitalization therein is perhaps lending to an idea that one can only be an agnostic theist with regards to the Abrahamic "God". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.199.68 (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Implementing the change noted above, which was proposed several months ago and reflects a more accurate understanding. Additionally, the change to "hope" may have been vandalism.

KSci (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC) The above talk entry was reverted by TenPoundHammer, I suspect it was a mistake. If not TPH, please just send me a note explaining.

Thanks

  K Sci  &#160; (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

"agnostotheism", "agnostitheism": made-up words?
Googling for it seem to mostly give results quoting wikipedia. I'm suspicious neither of those would be a proper etymological construction of a single word, which seems like some colloquial internet fad thing, "yeah, I've thinking about lots of stuff, I think I'm kinda, you know, an communanarcho monarchistheist, man". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.234.133.71 (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)