Talk:Agnosticism/Archive 3

Absolute truth
Does anyone have a reference for the following statement?


 * Many agnostics are people who do not believe in absolute truth.

From my understanding of agnosticism, I would think that this statement should be more like:


 * Many agnostics are people who do not believe in absolute knowledge of truth.

There is a huge difference between these two statements. I don't think I have ever heard any self described agnostics make a statement like the first; however, I have heard many agnostics say something like the second. millerc 21:50, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Feel free to make the change, but I will say the rewording seems awkward. Could you perhaps phrase it more eloquently whilst preserving your meaning? I had a rather different tract before, leading one to believe agnostics were relativist/possibly postmodernist, which you are clearly moving away from, and perhaps rightly so. Citations/verifiability would be great, but regardless preserving prose is likewise necessary. Sam Spade 22:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)


 * How about Many agnostics are people who do not believe it is possible to have absolute knowledge of truth? Bryan 05:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The sentance written by Bryan sounds good. Since no one has yet complained I think I will place it in the article.  There might be postmodernists who call themselves agnostics, but I don't think postmodernists make up a substantial subset of agnostics, as might be implied by the word many. millerc 01:26, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I think it reads well the way it is now, thank you. Sam Spade 04:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

gods
It was absurd to have an article on agnosticism that did not link to god. I’ve linked it. I’ve used a lower case g, despite my better judgment. If you can think of a way of linking the article to god without using the word god, be my guest. Banno 21:09, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Good job Bryan
that was actually a particularly agreeable compromise. The only trouble is their all the same link. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are. Shouldn't the final two be delinked? Should we illustrate the distinctions/distinguishing traits of these alternate terms? Sam [Spade] 05:00, 15 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, they aren't all the same link; deity redirects to list of deities, which I think is a reasonable way of indicating that Agnosticism is referring to "all of the above" rather than any one specific deity. The two links to god look hard to avoid due to Wikipedia's handling of capitalization. Bryan 05:17, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Atheism vs. agnosticism vs. skepticism
A question for those versed in the semantics of the above words. What do you call a person whose philosohical outlook encompasses the following?


 * Does not know whether there is a god (in any sense)
 * Is quite sure that he does not believe in any god as defined by religions known to him
 * Can't accept omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience
 * Is willing to accept that there may be more between heaven and earth than we now know
 * Does not make any claims about the unknowability or otherwise of any potential god

It seems to me that this position does not fall under the heading of either atheism nor agnosticism. So what is the word for this position? Cheers Io 14:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds to me like a weak atheist with a few specific classes of god falling under strong atheism. Also a weak agnostic, with respect to the unknown-but-not-necessarily-unknowable aspect of gods not possessing omnipotence, omnipresence or omniscience. Bryan


 * Thanks for your reply. So all taken together I'm a middling atheagnostic? There has to be a better word for it. :-)
 * Cheers Io 16:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * PS: Summing up, I think I could say: "Define god, then I'll tell you, whether I could accept him/her/it." That would qualify as weak agnosticism, wouldn't it? Io 17:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why be obsessed with self-categorization? Banno


 * It's hardly an obsession. It's just that I have followed discussions on the subject, on and off, and got the impression that there are as many interpretations of labels as there are debaters. It was more of a linguistic question than anything else. Cheers Io 15:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if the question sounded a bit rude. I was actually still thinking of the strange table that used to be here, and is now over at theism. It attempts to label the range of possible beliefs with regard to faith and the existence of god. It seems that seeking a label is a common approach to the topic. Banno 16:54, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * No offence taken. The quest for labels is, I believe, a characteristic of being human. After all, if someone asks where you're from, you mention the country and possibly the city. If someone asks about politics, you have a label handy (although apparently terms like liberal and conservative mean different things on the opposite sides of the Atlantic). Religion is also a subject that naturally turns up in conversation, but ask a Christian, and he has the terms ready, but a non-believer has to qualify his position with an interminable string of adjectives. It's inconvenient. And I've looked at the table you mentioned. I agree, it is strange, and as far as I can see, of limited value. But still, as I can gather, there's no term for any but a very few positions. (Part of my interest in this is, of course, that English is not my native language. If the experts disagree, what are you to do?) Cheers Io 17:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Question on distinction
I was wondering what the terms are for distinguishing between these two characteristics.
 * 1 non-commital disinterest no claim to have any special knowledge admitting ignorace.
 * 2 Belief that no-one can know, i.e. rejection of the idea that anyone can know.

It seems to me that agnostic has ben used by different people for both reasons and it occurred to me that English is not such a limited language so as not to be able to distinguish between the two. 1 is not a belief system because the only faith involved is in tangible knowledge though admitting limitation in personal knowledge. 2 is a belief system with a pillar of faith i.e. to believe in the ultimate limitation of knowledge in a specific regard. Hope someone can help me out here.Zestauferov 05:21, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * AIUI, (1) is called weak agnosticism and (2) is called strong agnosticism.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 02:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Knowledge Belief
It needs to be more clear that atheism and agnosticism do not belong in the same catagory. Everyone fits into one of the catagories strong/weak atheism or theism; Everyone fits into one of the catagories strong/weak agnostic or not agnostic. Everyone who is agnostic is also either atheistic or theistic. This point needs to be made more clear imo. About.com explains the definitions very clearly.

[ Chubtoad 2004-07-21t22:09z ]

Intro POV
The second paragraph of the intro seems vaguely POV, talking about how one "ought to" react to certain claims. Not sure how to fix it. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 02:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Neither involved a POV, since the &lsquo;ought&rsquo; was couched inside a conditional statement. . But I changed it anyway. A bit of a shame, I think, because I like the word &lsquo;ought&rsquo;. It is a word we don&rsquo;t to use enough these days, obligation being out of fashion.Banno 22:49, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Agnosticism article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. &mdash; LinkBot 10:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't quite make sense
I don't think the following makes sense:


 * For instance if agnostics claim that absolute knowledge of truth is not possible and do not restrict the scope of this claim, they are in danger of contradicting themselves. For then the statement there are no absolute truths would appear itself to be an absolute truth

I changed this sentance once before (see above), and someone else came along and changed it to something which doesn't make sense to me. The second sentence doesn't follow from the first. The first talks about knowledge of truth, and the second talks about absolute truth. My original change was also about belief, and you can have good reason to believe something to be true without knowing it to be true. Don't really want to get into a discussion about the semantic differences between belief and knowledge (that's for the epistomology article), but I think I'm going to change the sentance into something that makes sense to me. If anyone disagrees we can discuss... millerc 18:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can’t really see the point of your objection. But perhaps it would be simpler just to remove “knowledge” from the first sentence? Banno


 * Can't see the point? Absolute truth (absolutism) != absolute knowledge of truth (a sort of anti-skepticism).  I can't make that much clearer.  Its not just easier to remove knowledge, because skepticism is about knowledge (see skepticism), not about metaphysical objectivism of any sort. Someone can claim to be skeptical without believeing or disbelieving in any sort of absolute truth (physical, moral, etc.).  The two are distinct philosophical questions.  So unless you are claiming that there exist some agnostics that base their "agnosticism" on a total rejection of any sort of absolute truth (in which case their "agnosticism" wouldn't be a form of skepticism, contradicting the article) then the "example" itself is non-sensical. millerc 20:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The two sentences were written as an example of how the difficulties of scepticism would permeate agnosticism. Your present version does not perform this function. As it is, it seems pointless. It also includes a couple of weasels. Banno 00:13, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Without anyone to whom we can attribute a reference, the weasel terms are needed. Your version seems to make the blatantly POV claim that its just "obvious" what agnostics should believe.  My point is that not all agnostics follow the "logic" presented in the example. millerc 20:31, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just a curiosity... From the article:

''For example if an agnostic claims that absolute truth is not possible and does not restrict the scope of that claim, they are in danger of contradicting themselves. For then this individual would be obliged to hold that the statement there are no absolute truths is itself an absolute truth.''

If absolute truth is not possible, then wouldn't binary logic not apply, and hence logical contradiction would not be an absolutly true law? Using binary logic, which supposes that things are either unambiguously true or false, to disprove the supposition that things are never absolutely true doesn't really seem to work. Not that I really care, but this sort of philosophising always seemed more like a game to me, than anything worth while. :) millerc 21:05, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

..." if agnostics claim that absolute knowledge of truth is not possible and do not restrict the scope of this claim, they are in danger of contradicting themselves. For then the statement there are no absolute truths would appear itself to be an absolute truth."

I say 'there is no absolute truth' and do not see a problem. making that statement as an agnostic, i am 99% sure that statement is correct.


 * One could reasonably argue, from an agnostic point of view, that "absolute truth does not seem possible to confirm". Probably anyone actually trying to state that absolute truth cannot be known is simply committing the sin of sloppy phrasing, not actually adamant about their perfect certainty of the inability to be perfectly certain.


 * This makes the statement in question pretty much a straw man argumentKaz 18:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This paragraph has a very common epistomological mistake in it. There is a contradiction that if "there is no absolute truth" were "true", but that is not the end of the story. In "proving" that the statement is contradictory you have already assumed that it is false in your axioms. Therefore you did not prove anything! I learned about this in a higher level philosophy class as an undergraduate. There is a certain word that pertains to this, but I cannot remember it. It was something like a negative denial or statements that reference their own logical underpinnings or something. This paragraph should be removed unless this mistake is fixed. I will be polite and wait for reply before I delete this. --CHF


 * I believe that would be circulus in probando, or "begging the question". Kaz 00:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"why agnostics do not generally engage in proselytization"
From article, "... an agnostic might demand that religious statements be justified in the same way as scientific statements, perhaps in terms of the scientific method. Since this is adopting an attitude towards the quality of proof required to accept such statements, agnosticism becomes a matter of inclination rather than of logical proof. That is, one need only be willing to accept a different justification of religious statements in order to avoid agnosticism. Perhaps this explains why agnostics do not generally engage in proselytization."

Out of interest, can someone elaborate on this statement for me? (I'm interested because I consider myself agnostic and I do tend not to care much what others believe, but I've never really considered why this might be). Christiaan 13:35, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This quip has a grain of truth, I think. If religious belief (as in membership of a community) where an important aspect of the agnostic’s life, they might better adopt either an atheist or a theist position, depending on their disposition. There is also little advantage to an agnostic in “converting” others, and such conversations often look like the agnostic is kicking puppies. In all truth, most of my jokes eventually get stomped by the humourless style Nazis; I’m pleased to see that this one is still here, but now that you have drawn attention to it, I guess someone will remove it in the name of POV or some other deity. Banno 20:47, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have a different analysis of this question. Agnostics do not necessarily claim that there cannot be a spiritual Truth, only that they, or perhaps humanity in general, cannot know with absolute certainty what any such Truth is. This does not eliminate the possibility that someone out there is correct, it only means that anyone who hits on the Truth is doing so at least somewhat by accident. Even if the Christian god exists, and imparts some message upon some guy, that guy cannot truly know that he's not hallucinated it, he must simply assume that he did not, that the visitation was real. Conversely, the agnostic realizes one cannot know which of the crazy prophet-wannabes out there is a real prophet.


 * Therefore agnostics have no incentive to attempt to convert other people to agnosticism. They're aware, on some level, that it's possible that any one person they might try to convert might, accidentally, be correct. Kaz 18:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with that assessment. This is not a question of truth or not, but of scientific proof, based on logic (yes, logic) and ie. science theory akin Karl Popper. Ie. If there is a being describing him/her/itself to be God, you could scientifically verify the various 'divine' powers the scriptures attribute to it. If this being could suspend the laws of physics, summon angels, show us hell etc. - and if 'we' (the media, the academia, the world) would be allowed to measure / quantify those various actions I think we could logically conclude to call this being God. All the scriptures of all religions 'unfortunately' tie God to objective reality, allowing me to make the above call for 'logical proof'.


 * On the other hand, it's logically impossible to disprove the existance of a God, since if God is a physical being, or, a measurable being, there will be no way to simultaniously search through ALL places of the universe. You'd only be possible to do that if the laws of physics were suspended - thus invoking the direct existance of a superior, metaphysical force itself. And, if God is not a member of the objective reality, you cannot disprove him anyways. --Feisar 05:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, belief != knowledge
I removed the following from the page:

...and that to deny the existence of God is also untenable

I know I will probably be reverted again, but to claim that agnosticism represents some "logical" middle ground between atheism and theism is false. Atheism is specifically a "lack of theism" (you're either a theist, or you're not). It seems that the people who understand this are more likely to call themselves atheists rather than agnostics, but that doesn't mean that all atheists reject the label of agnosticism.


 * I completely disagree with your comment on agnosticism not being the logical answer to both theism and atheism. Could you please further elaborate your argumentation? --Feisar 05:02, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * He didn't say anything about agnosticism being the "logical answer" to both theism and atheism, and I'm not sure what that actually means. What he did say is that it's not a middle ground between them, because there simply isn't a middle ground between them. Atheism is the state of being without theism, so you're either an atheist or you're a theist. It's like trying to find a middle ground between "round" and "not-round"; those two groupings include all possible states, there's no such thing as "not round, but also not not-round." Unless we want to get into fuzzy logic and quantum computation, which is probably beyond the scope of what most people are thinking when discussing these matters. :) Bryan 05:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In Bertrand Russell's essay "Am I Agnostic or Atheist" he explains that his belief in God amounts to the same as most people's belief in the "Homeric gods". That is he disbelieves (has no positive belief), thus would be considered an atheist by most people; however, he is agnostic because he has no infallable proof that God does not exist (and also no proof that the "Homeric gods" do not exist).

Also worth mentioning is the increasing focus of this article on God (as opposed to theism) which is just one theistic concept that, for historical reasons, has been broadened from the Christian conception of theism to include most other monotheistic deities in the English language. Agnosticism, as far as I know, is a statement made about all theistic beliefs, not just one historical trend. millerc 20:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What about qualifying the statement rather than removing it? Christiaan 21:50, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * With what? I would use the words "some agnostics", but then Banno complained about my previous usage of weasel words (see above).  Personally I don't think I'm using weasel words if we can explain what is meant by the word "some" in the article body.  Giving a specific citation might be good.  I don't know of any, and a quick search on Google didn't find any.  I'll keep looking, and if you're that concerned about the statement then maybe you might consider looking too? millerc 22:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On one, not uncommon representation of agnosticism, it is precisely a mid-point between atheism and theism. Provided one denies a rule of consistency, Bp > ~B~p, which is a common positioning Deontic logic, it is also easy enough to prove – see the archives for this site. But the present wording seems OK. Banno 03:37, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * And the representation of agnosticism as being a middle ground is largely held and promoted by theists (although there are some people calling themselves agnostics who also hold this view). It's perfectly ok to say something like this about agnostics, just like it must be explained in the atheism article that some people hold that atheism is strictly one interpretation of strong atheism (IMO strong atheism can be more a subtle understanding than most people give it credit), and that everything else is agnosticism.  But this is not the only interpretation, so it needs qualifiers, and would do better in the body of the article not in the introduction (which IMO should be as broad as possible).


 * In the archives, are you talking about this ? You're being somewhat cryptic.


 * For one, being logical is not the same thing as being rational. For example, one only has to understand the "invisible pink unicorn" or "teapot in orbit around pluto" analogies -- which I have never heard anyone call themsleves an "agnostic" over, and yet currently, it would be just as impossible to disprove either statement with evidence, as it would be to disprove a theological construct.


 * Secondly, you can't be exact with inexact wording, the word god/God is ambigous (ever heard of the "god of the gaps"?), and theism itself is an extremely broad umbrella covering different religious beliefs. (1) You might not be able to deny theism as a whole (as it is literally redefined by every theist), but (2) you certainly can deny particular concepts which aren't based on any evidence, or might even go agianst available evidence (as does the fundamentalist protestant Christian god -- one of the entities usually named "God" -- who made the Earth and all existant "kinds" in six days). On (1) a person may describe him/herself as an agnostic-weak atheist; on (2) that same person might describe him/herself as a strong atheist with regards to a particular theological belief. millerc 18:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Kazvorpal's edits
Revision as of 05:11, Feb 9, 2005: Explaining a joke detracts from it.

Revision as at 05:17, Feb 9, 2005: Removing the example to a new paragraph, removing the phrase "for example" and then excusing the result as "sloppy phrasing" detracts so much from the point that it is really not worth publishing the result. if an agnostic claims that absolute truth is not possible and does not restrict the scope of that claim, they are indeed in danger of contradicting themselves. I note that the sentence is couched in a conditional (the "if...then..." bit), and so is not a straw man - which would require something like "all agnostics think that..." so who was the straw man to whom you referred? Revert until you explain. Banno 09:38, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * The article is not supposed to be a forum for your own effort to refute agnosticism. The argument you present is fallaceous on its face, nit-picking phrasing by assuming an interpretation which obviously would not be intended by the speaker. To make a negative statement about absolutes is to inherently imply that the statement itself isn't meant to be absolute. Your little argument is meaningless, not addressing any serious agnostic stance at all. This makes it a straw man, and it shall not stand as you had it. Kaz 00:16, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a first. I have often been described as agnostic and occasionally describe my self in that way. What fun, to be accused of attempting to disprove agnosticism! Kaz, I throw my hands up in despair. The point of the paragraph is to show that agnosticism is a form of scepticism - do you deny this? All I can do is repeat that the statement you think is an criticism is a conditional, and therefore does not say anything about what agnostics actually believe. I've no idea what "To make a negative statement about absolutes is to inherently imply that the statement itself isn't meant to be absolute" might mean. Banno 09:40, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * In attempting to "prove" that agnosticism is a form of skepticism, you attempt to disprove any other form of agnosticism, and you present a fallaceous statement in the stead of a valid form of the same argument. Agnosticism can be based on the premise that spiritual truth cannot be known, regardless of the criteria chosen. It can also be a sort of active indifference. What's more, skepticism can be the belief that absolute knowledge seems impossible, which is indeed possible without any inherent contradiction.


 * But, ultimately, the problem with your argument is simply that you're presenting an inherently contradictory statement and acting as if it proved something more than poor phrasing. One can phrase the presentation of any philosophical poorly enough that it becomes flawed. That says nothing about the actual philosophy. One can say of solipsism that "it's impossible to know what exists, therefore nothing does", which is nonsense, but this is just poor phrasing, again. One can more appropriately say "there is no apparent way to absolutely prove what does or does not exist, so the existence of all is left unproven".


 * Why would one seriously present a poorly phrased argument when attempting to define a philosophical position which has a more logical version of that argument available and commonly used? Kaz 00:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Kaz and Uni
Kaz, you've lost me completely - so please, take me through, step by step, and say what is wrong with what I've written. Which particular statements have I presented that are contradictory? Which statements are fallacious? It's sort of a tradition to do that sort of thing in a philosophical debate. Banno 06:52, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, but this isn't the college classroom where you were programmed in philosophy, this is an encyclopedia entry. It's supposed to explain what agnosticism is, not play silly little head games of misdefining the word and then complaining about it. I don't see how you could be unaware of what we're discussing...perhaps you should refer back to previous paragraphs, and the edit's you've been reverting, since this isn't a test being given by your professor.


 * So the problem here is that you flunked college, and have a chip on your shoulder. Banno 22:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, no, the problem is that guys like me don't fail classes, but we also don't get sucked into the head games of the teachers' efforts to define our world by their criteria, either. Immitating your college courses in the real world is not going to pan out very well for you...Kaz 00:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It's well over twenty years since I went to college: using what I learned hasn't turned out too bad, thanks for asking... ;-) Banno 10:03, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * You are insisting on putting a fallaceous statement in the article; "absolute truth is not possible", and then complaining that it's a fallaceous statement. But there's no reason to do this in an article defining agnosticism, however exciting your teachers found it to catch you up in logical fallacies in order to teach you they were wrong. Readers want to get the definition, not be taken on a little dance of mistake and correction.


 * One area you didn't do very well at is logic; nowhere in the article was it asserted that "absolute truth is not possible". The assertion was, as I have said several times, couched in conditional: "if an agnostic claims, as might a sceptic, that absolute truth is not possible, and therefore that knowing the truth about god is impossible, then they are in danger of contradicting themselves."  The purpose of the paragraph is to show that agnosticism is a form of scepticism; it does this by giving an example of fallacious sceptical reasoning that might be common to both. The argument derives from arguments against Ayers "all utterances about god are nonsensical" the agnostics utterances are, too. See for example the article on agnosticism in the Encyclopedia of Unbelief.Banno 22:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is precisely where you are tripping up. There is a contradiction between the claim "there is no absolute truth" and [b]your[/b] axioms (which is the standard for prepositional logic). But that only shows contradiction between the you and the skeptic. By saying "suppose the claim were true" you are working with your axioms. Your axioms presuppose "there are absolute truths" in the sense there exists A, such that A is true. The skeptic cannot say "suppose the claim were true", because his axioms do not allow such statements. The skeptic can only say "suppose the claim were very likely" and the skeptic will never reach a contradiction. I certainly agree that this is confusing at first, but in time you can figure it out and it will become apparent. So in summary Kaz is right, but this is a stumbling block for many. I don't know where to get good reading material on this, but these ideas date back at least to the early Jain philosophers. Also you cannot prove either logic true, you can only determine self consistence in their own framework. --CHF
 * Prepositional logic? This is presumably some new form that allows you to take "knowing the truth is impossible" and replace it with "knowing the truth is unlikely" and think that you have made progress? The ideas you posit here are common in philosophical neophytes. Yes, this argument form does assume what it is attempting to disprove - it's called a reductio ad absurdum. As for proof of logic - well, log into any philosophy forum and look at the old posts and you will find plenty of discussion in which such things are suggested by the naive.Banno 20:00, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Prepositional logic. You know the basic If P then Q stuff you learn in Logic 101. I suppose I should have said prepositional boolean logic or something. As for progress, I do not care, they are just different frameworks with different axioms. (Are you aware that there are many kinds of logic?) Both are self-consistent. The nonskeptical logic is certainly more easy to do calculations with, while the skeptical logic is what a natural scientist actually entertains. Secondly a reduction to absurdity is not the same as arguing from the premise, which is the fallacy you are commiting. None of this matters however as you have decided to be a troll and have delusions of being more knowledgable on the subject than both of my logic professors. Farewell.--CHF


 * It's called propositional logic (note the "o"). I trust that your Professors know a proposition from a preposition? I think it best if I discontinue this discussion, since arguing with you is too much like kicking a puppy. Banno 07:41, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes my bad english proves my argument is bad. Nice ad hominem there. I'd like to see you continue this argument Cantonese. You obviously knew what I was talking about.
 * My apologies. But if you use a patronising tone, expect to be patronised in return. Perhaps your time would be better employed in working on the Cantonese Wiki. Banno 19:52, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the purpose is for you to needlessly show that it's "a form of skepticism", as if that's the only thing it can be, when that's not the case. And it's apparent that you failed reading comprehension, since you seem not to understand that I said you put a fallaceous statement in the article. You deny it, and then go on to say that's precisely what you did. There's no need for you to set up hypothetical situations in order to knock down straw man fallacies uttered by some imaginary agnostic. Kaz 00:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You greatly misunderstand what was written there. But I suspect that your problem is with your understanding of scepticism - you seem to think that saying that agnosticism is a form of scepticism is a bad thing. I suppose, given that you misunderstand so badly, it needs a re-write. Sceptics deny that knowledge is possible. If one denies that spiritual knowledge is possible, which we seem to agree is what an agnostic does, then one is a spiritual sceptic. You seem to associate something very negative with scepticism; but what is actually presented is a defence of agnosticism in the face of the commonest critique of scepticism: that it leads to a complete denial of knowledge. Take care before you delete it, since you may be leaving the article open for more strident critics.Banno 10:16, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * But you are an example of how summarising a common argument in an encyclopedia can lead to misunderstanding given the readership. When I have time, I will introduce Ayer's argument, which is still fairly common, and the counters to it. Banno 22:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia definition of a single word is not a place for such schoolboy exercises. It would be more appropriate for you to refer to the relevent logical positivism entry, or write a more specific one under the appropriate name, than to march readers through it here. Kaz 00:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think agnosticism best defended in the agnosticism article. (Are you aware that your attack is entirely ad hominem? as it stands, you still haven't said what the problem is with the article - beyond the repeated accusation that I have asserted something that a "schoolboy" would see I have not. As such, your comments, amusing as they are, do nothing to help improve the article.)Banno 10:16, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Additionally, you are insisting on defining agnosticism exclusively as the denial that absolute knowledge of gods is impossible, when in fact it can be any system of decision which brings one, even temporarily, to the conclusion that one doesn't know what the spiritual Truth is. Not to mention that gods, per se, are not the topic, but spirituality in general. Kaz 16:32, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Where did I assert this? I did indeed say: "The central claim of agnosticism is that knowledge of God is inherently unachievable or must always remain uncertain," pointing to both weak and strong agnosticism indirectly in the same sentence (rather neat, I thought). Indeed, if you care to examin the history of the articel, I have been at pains to generalise the definition beyond the mere existence of god. So the points you attempt to make here are entierly hollow. Banno 22:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, because one can be agnostic without believing such knowledge to be either unachievable or perpetually uncertain. One can believe that people simply have not yet discovered a means of determining such knowledge, or that they, personally, are unable at this time to decide for themselves. There's no need for the grant-grubbing claims of extremes and absolutes of your academic experience. Kaz 00:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So just take out the "must always" and replace it with an "is". Banno 10:16, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph and definition
Since Kaz's edit removed links to god I'm partially reverting them. This makes for a difficult and long construct, but gives Kaz the chance to state his preferred definition. The sentence could be split into two, but I think that would render the definition ambiguous. Any one got an idea? Banno


 * The word "god" is not appropriate in the most direct part of the definition, because that's not what agnosticism is about, except as a side-effect or symptom. It would make more sense for it to say "spiritual truth (including the existence of any God or gods) is knowable".


 * To center around "the existence of god(s)" is a very simplistic approach. It's certainly what someone thinking solely about their own Christian upbringing might think first, but is really irrelevent to the whole definition. Again I cite Buddhism as an example of a spiritual stance that need not even include a deity at all.


 * But practical example is irrelevent...if one is expressing uncertainty as to any way to determine spiritual Truth at all, then the infinite possibilities in which there's something spiritual, but not a deity, are of equal value to the ones in which there is. Kaz 00:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gnosis
It's clear from the Shorter Oxford that Gnosis in English is used to refer to spiritual knowledge, but that it derives from the Greek word γνώσις, investigation or knowledge. I have never seen a source that stated that the Greek word refers exclusively to spiritual knowledge. If there is one, cite it here. Banno 22:56, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

See also the Wiki article Gnosis. Banno 23:00, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * All of the Gnosis entries verify the fact that the word refers to spiritual knowledge or enlightenment, not just any information.
 * Oh, for heaven's sake, read the first line of Gnosis! from the Greek word for knowledge! It's in English (or more correctly since the Gnostics that it has taken on the spiritual emphasis; But in the etymology the Greek meaning is the relevant one! This is certainly one of the silliest arguments in which I've been involved! Banno 01:20, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hell, it would make no sense your way...agnostic means "knowing nothing"? No, it means "without spiritual knowledge". It was not used for people in the Know-Nothing party in the middle of the 19th century, but for people denying spiritual knowledge.


 * Yes, it does - "agnostic" means without spiritual knowledge. No doubt about it. You are right. well done. Very clever of you. BUT the word was invented as an amalgam of the Greek "a" and "Gnosis", and IN GREEK Gnosis means "knowledge"!Banno 01:20, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Dictionary.com entry for gnosis...verifying the "spiritual knowledge" version Kaz 00:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does, and that's because in ENGLISH it has that meaning. But not in Greek. See how, about six lines down, the reference you cite says:


 * [Greek gnsis, knowledge, from gignskein, to know. See gn- in Indo-European Roots.]


 * that is, the word comes from the Greek word for "knowledge" - get it?
 * The purpose of an etymological entry is to show the origin of the word...
 * Banno 01:20, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

What?
"For some, the central claim of agnosticism is that it is not possible to be certain what spiritual ideas or philosophy are true, while for others it is that the such knowledge is either uncertain or subject to doubt." (my emphasis)

So, in what way does not being certain that some idea is true differ from thinking that they are uncertain or doubtful? What is this sentence supposed to say?Banno 01:28, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks to me like the first statement is saying "I can't know for certain that this is true, ie, it is impossible for me to ever know this under any circumstances", and the second statement is saying "I don't know for certain that this is true" without the categorical denial that it is possible to know whether it's true given other circumstances. Bryan 05:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps - I've re-written it in an attempt to make this explicit. Banno 10:34, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)