Talk:Weak agnosticism

Could we add some examples of people who have held to this position (not necessarily under this name)? And references to their writings about it, if any? seglea 08:14, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are rather a lot of quotes here, and they mostly appear to be about agnosticism in general rather than weak agnosticism specifically. I'm going to move them over to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Agnosticism and add a Wikiquote template to the Agnosticism article. Bryan 07:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Alien life?
That alien life example could use some reworking because there might be alien life--microbes--within our solar system. Santa Clause is clearly defined and admittedly man-made, whereas God is neither clearly defined, nor admittedly man-made. Santa Clause had its origins in Saint Nicholas. The concept of God dates much farther back and even a Christian will tell you that God came before Jesus, verily before time itself. Though my explanation may be muddled, I think that there is a distinction and it does not need to relate to a potentially incorrect statement, namely, that life does not exist in any solar planet other than Earth.

-You've got it backwards, the point is that the existance of aliens is not ridiculous. This is saying that it's no more ridiculous to believe that god might exist somewhere than to believe that alien life might exist somewhere (whereas it is ridiculous to say that Santa is at the north pole, aliens are on the moon, or that Zeus is on Mount Olympus). If you need a better example, you could say that believing in the possiblity of god is no more ridiculous than believing in the possibility of ghosts, magic, blessings, curses, exorcisms, out-of-body experiences or qi. Of course, those things may not be as plausible to a critic. There is precident for extra-terrestrial life given the known life existing on earth and the sheer size of the universe. Perhaps a weak agnositic would say that a 'plausible unknown' is of equal likelyhood as an 'unplausible unknown'. You may disagree. -pmm

article incorrectly defining term?
This article says, "Weak agnosticism ... is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable and therefore one should withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available." But this seems to contradict the only source given, which says weak agnosticism is "the view which is sustained by the thesis that it is permissible for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence." In other words, we're saying that it means, "No one knows now, but someone might know in the future," while our one source seems to say that it means, "I don't know, but other people might, even in the past or present," though I admit I could be reading something wrong. About.com, The Freethought Zone, and this website also contradict our claim that weak agnosticism claims no one knows whether God exists. Does anyone have references supporting our article's claim? If not, I will change the article to reflect these sources. --Allen (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Changed article to reflect source. --Allen (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

contradiction of meaning
Does weak agnosticism simply refer to a lack of belief in theism/strong atheism/strong agnosticism/etc, or does it actually involve a belief that there is not enough evidence to support those things? Is a person who's never heard of the concept of gods a weak agnostic? Or must someone believe that there is not enough evidence available to them to support theism/strong atheism/strong agnosticism/etc, to be a weak agnostic? The article first says weak agnosticism "is the belief that ..." and then contradicts itself by saying it is a "lack of belief". Herorev (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was wondering something similar. Consider the following statement by an agnostic: "according to my best evaluation of the evidence and arguments I've encountered at this time, I don't know whether or not God exists, BUT if anyone thinks I have overlooked a key point of evidence/argument, I'm willing to look at it, and perhaps it will help me decide one way or the other."  What kind of agnostic would the hypothetical person I just 'quoted' be?  Does it matter to what extent, how comprehensively, or how passionately he's examined the question of the existence of God up to this point?  Weak agnostic was the closest I could find, and while it does seem the closest, this article didn't leave me confident in that assessment. Doubleg (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Other types of agnostics seem to rely on particular certainties, such as a strong agnostic who is certain we'll never know whether or not a god exists, or an agnostic atheist who is certain he does not believe in any god. This leaves weak agnosticism to be the catch-all term for the people who subscribe to absolute uncertainty, so to speak. Perhaps a good description of a weak agnostic is a person who is open to believing in something if there is sufficient proof. Since your hypothetical person is open to deciding one way or the other, I'd say they are a weak agnostic.


 * "Is a person who's never heard of the concept of gods a weak agnostic?" Not necessarily. It depends whether they have contemplated existence and come to any conclusions. If they haven't, they have theological tabula rasa. If they have contemplated existence, they might have come up with their own idea which is equivalent to a god, eg. a giant machine which stitched the universe together. Then they could form any manner of beliefs or disbeliefs around that. 210.55.99.90 (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is nothing in that quote to specifically suggest that the speaker is a weak agnostic. This could be the position of any agnostic, including that of a strong agnostic.  Strong agnosticism has been defined as the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist.  The strong agnostic does not claim to have knowledge of the inexistence of deities.  They simply believe that such knowledge cannot be found by humans.  This doesn't mean that they would necessarily refuse such knowledge if it were found.  They would simply have been wrong in their belief.  It's important to distinguish the difference between "believing" and "knowing with certainty."  In order to determine whether or not the person you quoted was a weak agnostic, we would need specific details about their beliefs with regard to "human obtainability of knowledge of the existence of deities." Korvayer (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Propose merging with Agnosticism
I propose we merge this with the article on Agnosticism. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwerner (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Scope of article
So I am editing this entry, and thinking, how much should this cover? Should I discuss arguments for and against the existance of god or is that best left to other entries like the one I have linked to? And if not, can the existance of this article seperate from Agnosticism be justifed if a proper disscussion of the issues surrounding it is not present? Thanks Falkon51 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement incorrectly re-defining concept?
Here is the statement as is: "One reason why weak agnostics may hold such beliefs is their belief that no irrefutable or sufficiently strong evidence exists proving or disproving the existence of god(s), that is they do not think that the existence or non-existence of god can be logically proved."

The first clause of the statement suggests that weak agnostics believe that evidence of the existence (or inexistence) of god(s) DOES NOT exist. The second clause of the statement suggests that weak agnostics believe that evidence of the existence (or inexistence) of gods CANNOT exist. By using "that is" to separate the two clauses, you're suggesting that the former clause implies the latter, and that is simply not the case. Interestingly, I find that the latter clause would appear to be more in line with the concept of strong agnosticism. Maybe you can clarify this for me.

Furthermore, as the former clause is a statement that might hold true for any agnostic (weak and strong alike), I feel that it would have a better home on the agnosticism page. Remember: It is the goal of the broader spectrum of agnosticism to question one's knowledge of the existence (or inexistence) of god(s). The "weak" category of agnosticism deals specifically with the question of whether that knowledge might be obtainable. So, although the first clause of the statement might be true of a weak agnostic, it might also be true of any agnostic, and so I do not feel that it is particularly relevant to the article.

Lastly, although I understand the point that you are conveying with the first clause, I feel that it is worded in such a way that it might be interpreted to suggest that ALL weak agnostics share this view, and there is nothing in the definition of weak agnosticism that would specify one's reason for coming to the position. This would be a misinterpretation on the part of the reader. Korvayer (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Strong and weak agnosticism
I suggest that Weak agnosticism and Strong agnosticism be merged into a single article Strong and weak agnosticism. Each article already must distinguish its topic from the topic of the other. It would be more comprehensive to have a single article that deals with the entire contrast--JimWae (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is a lot of content overlap and they are more notable for their comparative/antonymic relationship.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I also agree. What happened to this idea? GManNickG (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems logical, with no prejudic to splitting again if the article grows in conent to merit non-stub subarticles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Strong and Weak Agnosticism need to be merged into Agnosticism, and I'm fine with allowing them to split if they get too large.  Ashershow1 (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong definition of weak agnosticism?
"Weak agnostics differ from strong agnostics in that they believe the existence or non-existence of god(s) CAN be proved by science and philosophy."

Don't weak agnostics also acknowledge the 'possibility' that we'll never know whether God exists? What about replacing CAN with MIGHT? 76.119.114.233 (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As an Agnostic with literally zero understanding of the complex underpinnings of my psuedo-religion, I would have to agree with this anonymous user's definition. The way that I understand it, Weak Agnostics are the people who are Agnostics about being Agnostics, that is to say that they do not know whether or not humanity can know whether or not God exists, whereas Strong Agnostics firmly believe that there is no way for humanity to know whether or not God exists. Missing, however, is a name for those who firmly believe that humanity can indeed know whether or not God exists, but simply believe that humanity has not yet achieved that point, though I do not actually know whether or not people like that exist.
 * ―67.180.86.254 (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Weak, but No Strong?
I have noticed that there is a weak agnosticism article, but there isn't one for strong agnosticism. I see that someone had the idea of merging this article with some information about strong agnosticism to make a "Weak and Strong Agnosticism" article. That is a very good idea. There is barely any information on strong agnostics on Wikipedia, so we need to have a "Weak and Strong Agnosticism" article, or not change this article at all and make Strong Agnosticism its own separate article. Ncd46 (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)