Talk:Agnosticism/Archive 6

January 3, 2007 edits by 67.165.208.252
I reverted the edits by 67.165.208.252. Stating that all agnostics believe in the existence of a god is in contradiction with parts of the rest of the article, the Philosophical opinions for example.

Concerning removal of the Qualifying agnosticism section, I'm assuming that 67.165.208.252's objection is the lack of sources for terms mentioned. For some of them, finding notable sources shouldn't be a problem (I'm working on it as we speak :)), but others seem te be mentioned only on the basis of a single occurance in a non-notable source. I propose that "Model agnosticism", "Agnostic theism", "Agnostic spiritualism", "Relative Agnosticism" and "Agnostic atheism" are removed from the list unless someone can provide notable sources for them. (Please note that with "non notable source" I'm not implying "untrue source". About.com for instance, provides for some great reading, but I don't consider it to be a notable source since it's not original material and it doesn't provide citations of it's own sources.) Ζεύς 11:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they should all be removed. Huxley separated any absolutes of reality from personal knowledge. He stated that personal beliefs were formed from that personal knowledge. He explained that "unknowable", was different for every individual. Meaning, people form their beliefs on enough circumstantial evidence to satisfy them, not absolutes. That allows for Atheists, Theists, and Agnostics, to all admit to not knowing the absolutes of reality, without it changing their beliefs. There's no such thing as an Agnostic-Theist or an Agnostic-Atheist. If they feel they know enough, to commit to a belief, then it doesn't really matter if they acknowledge the impossibility of knowing reality...they've commited their beliefs to Atheism or Theism. Huxley also stated the only thing that separated Agnostics, was that they didn't know enough, to form a belief. 3DJay 19:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal God?
Where does one fit in when they have strong atheistic views of a personal god (Deism?) but otherwise meet the definition of agnostic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.121.58 (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Deism seems to cover that. Of course, there are a few variants of deism, too. samwaltz 10:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe in a personal god but do believe in a deity then you're a theist. If you think there may be a deity but are undecided due to lack of sufficient evidence then you're agnostic. If you believe there is sufficient evidence that one can prove logically that no deities exist then you're an atheist. Atheism is illogical as a deity could sit outside the universe and have simply created it and left it running - perhaps like having a fish tank. Most atheists I've come across start with something like an argument of malevolence or lack of a personal-deity's explicit interference or disbelief in 7-day creationism as evidence for no deity. What they are really arguing is that they don't believe in a personal monotheistic god, usually they're simply reacting against the post-Christianity of their social arena ... I digress. 78.148.45.6 (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

On definition
Not just guessing, I think the vast majority of people who identify themselves as agnostic also have some hesitation in actually believing a god exists. It is not just an epistemological position, it is also a statement about one's own psychology regarding accepting theism - at least among those who self-identify as agnostic. Most theists would agree that theism is a matter of faith, and that they do not know (to a philosophical standard of knowledge) that a deity exists. Admittedly, some theists claim knowledge -- to a different standard of knowledge. However, theists (and atheists) who claim metaphysical certainty (one way or the other) are usually working with metaphysical arguments that have received much criticism from post-Kantian philosophers. Those who self identify seem to be drawing attention to their own belief-state (hesitation, entertaining doubt) rather than just the epistemological position -- except perhaps for those who are just reluctant to call themselves atheists --JimWae 22:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

When Kantian ideas were new, saying that one was an agnostic was saying something somewhat novel. Previous to coining of the word agnosticism, people who were not theists were called atheists - however the term was often used disparagingly. Coining the term was not marking out new intellectual territory - it was finding a less objectional term that included most of those formerly called atheists (excluding only those who claimed knowledge that there was no deity, but not excluding those who disclaimed theistic belief). It probably also excluded those who never gave much or any consideration to theism.--JimWae later than above, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

True that! Manic Hispanic 04:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that TRUE agnosticism in regards to religious belief is impossible. Not believing is the default position, even if for agnostic reasons. In this not believe, one is actually a weak atheist. It seems impossible to be a TRUE agnostic, because if even if you believe the existence or non-existence of a God is equi-probable, you MUST fall on one side of the spectrum: belief or non-belief. MitchLeBlanc (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Huxley's Advocacy
Huxley may have had ulterior motives for preaching agnosticism, as noted here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Henry_Huxley_and_agnosticism#History_is_written_by_the_winners

Ac44ck 00:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
I'm planning to move material from Spectrum of Theistic Probability into the bottom of this article calling it "Criticism of agnosticism", please express your opinion here. --Merzul 20:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agnosticism and epistemology
It was quite surprising for me that this article defines agnosticism in terms of its answers to religious claims. I thought that agnosticism can be defined as a view of epistemology, viz. as a view that denies the possibility of achieving firm truths. It seems that in the Western tradition, agnosticism is not used in this sense (I couldn't find any web sources, that would connect agnosticism with epistemology in general, rather than with the 'God question').E.J. 14:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

E.J. You are extremely close; The assertion that Agnosticism "denies the possibility of achieving firm truths" is relativism and runs into the known unknowable fallacy discussed above. Agnosticism should be considered an epistemic position. You might say it is more a question of deciding what criteria has to be met in order to consider something true: a belief that evidence must bare out any assertion or belief. 129.33.1.37 (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Many people do define agnosticism in terms of Religious questions; however, as Huxley, himself argued:

it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. The entire statement is about epistemology --Spiker 22 (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

God(s) v. god(s)
This would seem to be a very simple issue, the capitalized 'God' or 'Gods' is a title, and should be used when refering to a particular god or group of gods. The lower case 'god' is the generic noun, and should be used when not refering to a particular god. 'God(s)' is inherently incorrect as it implies that at the very least one does not know the number of gods being refered to, and so cannot be refering to one particular god or group of gods. --Menestheus


 * There's a somewhat related point I'd like to make. I think that we should only phrases like "the uncertainty about the existence of gods" and not "the uncertainty about the existence of gods or God" (or "God or gods"). There's no point in adding an "or" to add just one item of the same general category of the preceding word. It's somewhat like saying "the uncertainty about the existence of ETs or greys". It would be acceptable when dealing primarily with the specific item, and then to generalize for all items of the same class; "Pitbulls were seen as a menace, but no one could enforce a law prohibiting pitbulls or fight dogs". --Extremophile (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Where would this person fit in?
Some one who states that they: -believe that a god(s) exists. -reject most/all definable/expressible definitions of god(s) -believe that definition of god is unknowable or inexpressible.

They may also state that they intuitively understand the nature of god, but are unable to express using words.

Could they be considered any kind of agnositic? Is this a common viewpoint?


 * What about someone who not only believes that God (capital G,the abrahamic god) exists, but knows it, yet doesn't believe in God, or any other (semi/demi) gods (inc. Satan) for that matter, therefore doesn't worship any gods.

About your first question about this person who believes in God, but refuses to define him, the question is interesting. I would consider it agnostic theism, but I don't know, if that's correct. I know at least that Anthony Kenny expresses such a views in this interesting paper. The essay ends by saying: "To leave God unnamed, then, is not equivalent to disowning him; on the contrary it is to refuse to claim an ownership which would be blasphemous." This is in my opinon more sophisticated than what our agnostic theist in this article says. --Merzul 13:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

=
=============================================== The person in question is a Gnostic better known as a mystic. If there is no definition there can be no knowledge. If there is no definition what distinguishes "God" from a pumpkin, a mud puddle or a shnooog "God" might as well be either one of these without definition. 129.33.1.37 (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Spiker_22

Hume and meaning
The section titled "qualifying agnosticism" begins with this sentence:

"Enlightenment philosopher David Hume proved that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt."

The statement is a striking paradox that raises two questions. 1) Could (should) this section be introduced by a statement that is more internally consistent? 2) What is the nature of proof for an agnostic, particularly with regard to philosphical arguments like those Hume put forward in "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding"?

I do agree with the writer that Hume offers a great starting point for the discussion.

66.28.178.67 21:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC) cck


 * I agree that the first sentence is inconsistent and I will change it to
 * "Enlightenment philosopher David Hume contended that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt."
 * As for your second question, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I think that for an Agnostic, much of their beliefs are derived from the idea that there is no "proof" in most cases (in this case regarding God).  I doubt that answered your second question, perhaps someone else can.  Breakyunit (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agnostic Theism and Agnostic Atheism removal
I would suggest the removal of Agnostic Theism and Agnostic Atheism from this article as not being germane to agnosticism itself. The subcategories are actually subcategories of Theism and Atheism respectively and are not true subcategories of agnosticism. If they were they would be Theistic Agnosticism and Atheistic Agnosticism instead. Agnostic theists should also not be mentioned in the demographics talk at the beginning since they are theists at the core of their definition and not agnostics. Sure, an agnostic theist may claim they have no knowledge and use agnostic as an adjective to qualify their theism, but they are after all a theist no matter how that belief is qualified. Ffuege 17:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * While I understand the logic in what you are saying. Regardless of whether what you say is true about agnosticism being used as an adjective to describe a particular theist/atheist. The fact is that there is confusion as to the idea that agnosticism is a religious belief. It isn't and by pointing out that one can be a theist and agnostic or atheist and an agnostic emphasizes its just a way of thinking not belief. That said if you use for example "theistic agnosticism", you're turning it into a religous belief. Agnosticism is strictly not a religious belief. Ignosticism is the word used to describe a belief structure centered around agnosticism. PedanticSophist (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Protagoras
Why isn't he included in this article, one of the first agnostics I believe? Mallerd 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link
Ref 6 in the main text appears to be broken, but I fear any amendments I make will not resolve the fault.V-Bede 12:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Agnosticism is not a religion.
Would you guys agree that agnosticism is not a religion? If so, would you agree that we should not list it as a religion in articles about certain people? We should write None under "Religion" if the person does not belief in any religion. And while we are in this topic, I would argue the same way about Atheism. Atheism is not a religion. But this is not the place to discuss atheism. What do you guys think? --Xer0 19:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it does fit, if you take religion to mean a set of spiritual beliefs regarding a divine presence, the belief that there is no devine presence or that we are incapable of proving the presence of a devine being or not, it is a religion in a way. To say if it is or not depends entirely on your definition of religion. T. Sutherland (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that constitutes a "set". One can hold beliefs about god, without it being a religion (e.g., Deism). Also, if every belief about a deity constitutes a religion, this would lead us to the odd situation of having all sorts of religions - there would be a religion called "theism", one called "monotheism", a religion for "people who think God created the Universe, but that evolution is still true", and another one for "Zeus doesn't exist". This would mean say, a Christian, would be a member of countless "religions"... Mdwh (talk)

I think you just descibed the general atmoshpere and plight of the world right now as far as "religion is concerned. There are just about THAT many beliefs and opinions and faiths and churches and sects and hereseys about in just America. I "believe" (dare I say) that the bigger issue or the root of there being so many and seemingly a large portion of confusion to the what the "truth" is actually lies in a few factors. Those factors I believe are in the minds and the hearts of the ones that develop the "out of the box" thinking. Not so much in proving if Christ, Satan, Buhdda, Ron L. Hubbard, David Karesh, or any of these others are correct or have existed.  its more someones translation of the events that happened and how he story had been manipulated.  Or did I just get off the subject.

-a concerned Chirstian- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.0.246 (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say we certainly shouldn't list "Agnostic" as someone's religion - this is a separate issue (technically, one could belong to a religion, as well as being agnostic). "None" is far simpler, and avoids any problems. Mdwh (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Atheism and agnosticism are religious positions. In some ways, to write none, when either agnosticism or atheism is documented, is to discriminate against people who hold specific positions. Surely these people have the right to have their opinions on religion count as much as the next person's. While writing none surely makes things simpler, it creates problems of its own. It conflates the two positions. Besides, I'm not sure that agnosticism or atheism applies to one god specifically but rather to the potential or ascertainability of any god. I think agnosticism and atheism should be noted when well-documented and otherwise, a not applicable. Phyesalis (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Agnosticism is not a religious position. It is an understanding/belief of what knowledge is, merely subjective interpretation. Atheism isn't necessary a religion, but it is a religously oriented belief. PedanticSophist (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Atheism can be a religion but what most call atheism is normally agnosticism which is definitely not a religion. Dawkins is a religious atheist - he requires others to accede to his position, he declares he knows the truth in the face of logical counterargument. IMO agnosticism is usually the only scientific position.

@Mdwh Christians all believe in a single triune God (by [partial] definition) and so there is no need to say that they are also part of the group who believe Zeus is a simple fable, it is innate in the position of a Christian. 78.148.45.6 (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Dubious
I am removing "militant agnosticism" from the list (which reads like a T-shirt). I searched Google, got 1,130 hits went ten pages in and couldn't find one mention that wasn't a blog, a sales gimmick, or just agnosticism being modified by miltiant as an adjective. I searched on J-Stor and got 5 hits. Each article used the two words once and only as a descriptive phrase, not noting any kind of school of thought or social phenomenon. It's hard to prove a negative, but I think I've proven its lack of verifiability. Hope everyone's okay with this. Phyesalis (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Negative agnosticism
Found nothing under "negatiive" but have found this so far, a philosophy atricle on "weak" agnosticism. Will change to reflect. Haven't had time to go through it but will check to see if content reflects def as supplied. Phyesalis (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)