Agnosticism
Hey, I'm new to the forum and i really like this space...
What i wanted to put forward is the subject of agnosticism...now my thoughts on theism over the past years have been(agnostic), could someone care to explain the concept of agnostic theists and agnostic atheists because personally i don't think the concepts of agnosticism and the latter are compatible
What i wanted to put forward is the subject of agnosticism...now my thoughts on theism over the past years have been(agnostic), could someone care to explain the concept of agnostic theists and agnostic atheists because personally i don't think the concepts of agnosticism and the latter are compatible
Comments (73)
Why you'd have a belief about x if you think x's status is unknowable, I don't know. But apparently that describes some people.
It might be that some folks have wonky views of knowledge, though, where they won't say that they know something if it's not proven or certain. Why they don't realize that no empirical claim is provable, again I don't know.
In Greek, the beginning "a" negates the word's meaning. Like, pathetic (feeling) -- apathetic.(unfeeling). Gnostic (knowing) agnostic (not knowing).
Theist - believes in a god, a supernatural higher being.
Atheist - again, "a" being a negator, an atheist believes there is no God, no supernatural power.
Agnostic atheist -- someone who claims no knowledge over whether god exists or not, but believes there is no god.
Agnostic theist -- someone who claims no knowledge whether any gods exits or not, but believes in god(s) nevertheless.
To my knowledge, agnosticism posits that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. I would assume that agnostic theists assume that God exists, but have doubt and that agnostic atheists assume that God does not exist, but don't disallow for the possibility that ae does.
I don't want to be divisive, but I kind of see agnosticism as just not quite going all the way with atheism. It's more common because it doesn't quite carry the same baggage.
Being said, there are really sincere agnostics. Plenty of people simply think that it impossible to know as to whether or not God exists.
Maybe 'AE' for God, but 'ae' elsewhere is some kind of a diphthong thing or something.
We can't really show invisible realms being so or not so. This does, though, show that no one can ever be blamed for not accepting the invisible realm.
Well, since I'm not going to make anyone type out the character they won't be smooshed together.
Do you believe in god(s)?
Are you sure?
The first question tells us if you are theist or atheist (or a third type of person with strange grammar understanding that thinks they are better than the rest in some way).
The second one tells us if you are agnostic or not.
i don't think agnosticism is explicitly related to atheism as you insinuate...being agnostic, i honestly think is just questioning both camps. Can we know for sure that there aren't any deities out there, and if we can, how?on the other hand can we be so certain of the existence of god(s) out there without substantial proof?
The 'third type of person' is supposed to be the agnostic fyi, and i don't think agnostics think they are better than the other folks, what they're simply stating is that; atheists can't be 100% certain that deities don't exist, how can they even prove that? On the other hand theists can't be so certain of the existence of deities either, since there hasn't been substantial evidence to prove so
this is what I've been questioning all along, why have a belief about something whose state you think is unknowable?
No, an agnostic, by virtue of being an agnostic, isn't committed to the existence of God being possible, just that they don't know whether or not God exists.
To say they don’t know whether god exists is to cling to the possibility that god exists. It’s not possible for god to exist, therefor I know god doesn’t exist.
No, that doesn't follow. You either don't know what agnosticism is or you're bad at logic. An agnostic is not committed to the possibility that God exists.
So an agnostic doesn’t think it is possible a god might exist?
Thank you for confirming that it's the latter, i.e. you're bad at logic.
Can’t answer the question?
Can't figure out the answer from my replies?
Does an agnostic believe it is possible a god might exist? A simple yes or no will suffice.
I can't give a simple "yes" or "no" to a question like that, because it is like asking whether an agnostic likes Marmite.
Are you an agnostic?
In terms of psychological certainty, I'm 100% certain that no deity exists. It's not about proof. Empirical claims are not provable. I see religious claims as absurd, arbitrary nonsense, the same as any random nonsensical idea that we could brainstorm. For example, if someone were to claim that there are pink bunny rabbits floating around Jupiter's atmosphere, wearing smoking jackets, sitting on big puffy leather couches (which are floating right along with them), reading philosophy books, etc. It's just random nonsense--maybe fun as a surreal fantasy, but I'm not about to think for one moment that it could be the case because it's obviously just goofy crap we're making up.
He's saying they can be agnostic on whether it's possible, too. That's different than believing either that it's possible or not possible.
Beside the point.
How can one remain agnostic if he doesn’t believe in the possibility of a god existing? That’s what I’m having trouble with. It seems to me that in order to say “I don’t know whether god exists” relies on that underlying assumption.
I just want to ask an agnostic if he believes it is possible for a god to exist or not.
Because one doesn't know if it's possible or not for a god to exist. So you're not believing that's it's not possible, but you're not believing that it's possible either. You're, well, agnostic on that issue.
Then he must hold on to the possibility of the possibility of a god existing. It’s an infinite regression.
Not believing doesn't imply believing the contrary.
Imagine someone asking "Is my car parked on Main Street?"
And then the person we ask says, "I don't know . . . I don't even know if it's possible for your car to be parked on Main Street (do you have a car? Is there a Main Street where you are or were for it to be parked on? etc.)"
Not only do they not know if the car is parked on Main Street, they don't even have a belief whether it's possible that the person has a car parked on Main Street.
They simply don't have an opinion on it. Maybe they don't have enough information, or they think it's not something that can be known, etc.
But asking a single agnostic that question won't make any difference in the bigger picture. Just because one agnostic likes Marmite, that doesn't mean that they all do.
Not sure that’s the greatest analogy. They would know whether cars and Main Street exist, whether it was possible they parked there or not.
Not necessarily. You might be able to discover the information, but you don't necessarily know when you're asked and when you respond. It can be the case that you don't know/you don't even have an opinion on whether it's possible. That's all that you need to understand.
Quibbling again.
If you or S or someone were to ask me this right now, I'd not be able to know whether it's even possible, especially if you don't tell me where you live, where you've been, whether you have a car in the first place, and if there's no way for me to verify any of that info (you might just be making something up), etc.
One can’t say “I don’t know” to an either/or question without maintaining the possibility of either side might be right.
Right--without having a belief in possibility either way. That's just the idea.
One cannot say “I don’t know” to an either/or question without holding on to the idea that one or the other might possibly be true.
In my own case, I don’t believe even in the possibility of a god, so saying I don’t know to the question whether god exists or not betrays my underlying belief.
I don't understand for the first part why you were basically writing the same thing just with a "cannot" instead of a "can."
At any rate, sure, if you believe that it's not possible for a god to exist--which is my view, too--then you wouldn't say "I don't know if a god exists."
But if you say "I don't know if a god exists," you might also think, "I don't even know if it's possible for a god to exist."
It has become clear that that's your "go to" hand wave.
But that leads to an infinite regression. It’s “I don’t know” all the way down.
No, that's a slippery slope fallacy.
What? No, it’s like this: if someone don’t know whether it is possible whether a god exists, then he thinks it is possible that it is possible that a god exists, and so on to infinity.
It's probably because many people don't actually have a clear idea on what the god is that they are (not) believing in. Peoples ideas on gods float around between an actual physical entity (where the answer would be easily obtained by applying the scientific method) and some metaphysical concept. The problem is that it's unclear how you could even be said to "know" anything about god as a metaphysical concept, so people come up with agnostic belief.
I'm not sure what the regression is. You know that you don't know if you think that it's possible for a god to exist or not.
No, they precisely DO NOT think this. They don't think it's possible for a god to exist. That would be knowing that it's possible. They do not know if it's possible. They don't have an opinion on it.
Aren't you familiar with not having an opinion on something? For example, I don't know if it's feasible that Trump could be impeached.
That doesn't imply that I think it's feasible. And it doesn't imply that I think it's not feasible. Rather, I don't know.
No, that's just an assumption on your part. It's an understandable assumption, but it's not necessarily the case. Your logic is invalid.
But then it seems weird to me to have a belief one way or the other. I would think those folks would instead say, "Let's figure out what we're even talking about first."
I think you are confusing yourself with the semantics here. Being agnostic means you either do not think the question of gods existence can be answered at all or that you think the question cannot be answered with the information currently available. im not sure how this effects whatever argument you are making but thats what it means.
I did state that that is what it is. That's just a suspicion of mine as a somewhat unapologetic atheist. You don't really have to feel like you're not entrenched enough even though making you feel that way is something that I was sort of doing. The baggage of atheism honestly kind of isn't worthwhile. I sort of wish that I was agnostic. I just simply think that there is no God, though.
In a different thread, I was partially defending the new atheist position against religion, but now I think that they could just be off base and that the thing to do is really to just move away from religion. Agnosticism is interesting because it states that it is impossible to know either way. There's no positive or negative claim to go along with the belief system. It poses the question as the belief. It's kind of cool.
I wonder if I, myself, aren't becoming more of a non-theist as opposed to an anti-theist. I don't see non-theism as an alternative to atheism, but it could be an alternative to anti-theism. Atheism already kind of describes such an approach.
It’s difficult to formulate, so thanks for the good faith. I might have to express it in more formal logic for it to make any sense, which I will do in time. But for now the argument is yours.
I appreciate that clarification. But I still think that to believe the question cannot be answered is still to hold on to the assumption that either/or might possibly be true.
It won't make any difference. If you don't know whether or not it's possible that God exists, it simply doesn't follow that you think that it's possible that it's possible that God exists, nor does it mean that you'd be inconsistent if you did not think that it was possible that it's possible that God exists, and there are a number of possible explanations if this were the case.
this is now ignosticism, and i think this is also a sensible view..it states that the word 'god' itself doesn't have an inherent meaning so we don't even know what exactly we're opposing or defending in the first place to get to a sensible argument
That wouldnt be an assumption. You are right that the possibilities become wide open when you dont know, the answer could be anything but there is no assumption being made, an assumption is accepting something as true with no proof. I understand you are alluding to the commitment to a possibility but calling that an assumption is incorrect.
Whoa. This is pretty sweet.
On some level I think that ignosticism can be considered to be more atheist than atheism itself.
Fair. I was speaking of underlying assumptions mainly, but point taken.
Not really. In practice, it's absorbed into atheism, hence why hardly anyone generally identifies their broader position with that term.
I think that the existence of God is meaningless can be interpreted as proceeding from what Nietzsche meant by "God is dead." To say that "God is dead." was, in my opinion, to say that God is no longer philosophically relevent. You can interpret ignosticism quite radically as suggesting that the question of God's existence is meaningless from an ardent atheist standpoint. I'm not suggesting that that is what the ignostics do; I'm just stating that that is a possible interpretation of Ignosticism.
Yeah, I was joking a little there. When I say "better" I mean that some think they are "above the fray". Some also think they are "better" in that they have honed there mind so perfectly that "belief" no longer occurs...psssh.
I cannot see any difference, aside from semantics and disagreement on specific meanings of certain words, between my views (which I would call agnostic atheist) and those of Agnostics.
Quoting Philosophical Script
Quoting ZhouBoTong
The first question is about theist or atheist. The second is about agnostic or not.
Quoting Philosophical Script
You ignored the second question. An atheist who is unsure is agnostic.
Quoting Philosophical Script
I don't know. But it may be possible. I am agnostic about the idea that "it is impossible to know if there is a god". Similarly, I am agnostic to the idea that "it is impossible to know if there is no god".
But there is no god I have ever heard of that I do believe in, so I call myself atheist.
So does the word agnostic tell us anything about the person other than they believe (hehe) that atheists and theists are wrong? I don't get why "I don't know" doesn't leave the possibility of god's existence open?
Sounds like it is a possibility? I get they don't typically think about it, but once asked directly, they would have to acknowledge the possibility that is inherent in "I don't know".
It leaves both the possibility and impossibility of God's existence open. It isn't a stance about that, it's simply a stance about the lack of knowledge in relation to the existence or nonexistence of God.
I don't know what else you think that could tell us about the agnostic. No, it won't give away what football team they support or what their favourite flavour of crisps is. It doesn't give much, if anything, away at all, besides the obvious.
What possibility would that be? And how is it inherent?
"I don't know" just means I don't know, not that it's possible. Some people seem to be reading that into it.
If asked whether there exists a circle which is square, and I reply that I do not know, how am I logically implying that I think that it is possible? That's neither what I mean nor follows from what I've said. I haven't ruled out that it is an impossibility by simply stating my lack of knowledge.
“I dont know” leaves the answer to whatever question completely open, saying you don’t know means the answer could be anything. A person could start eliminating certain possibilities after that of course to determine what isnt the answer but the possibilities of what IS the answer is inherently open by nature of not knowing.
Yes. Exactly my thoughts, but clear, hehe. Thanks.
Yes, I agree, and one of those possible answers is, "It's impossible". Just saying, "I don't know", doesn't rule out that possibility; which, if true, would of course mean that whatever we're talking about - whether the existence of God or square circles - isn't, and perhaps never was, possible, and, like you say, it would eliminate certain answers from the enquiry.
This direction the discussion has taken is a tangent which arose because someone here didn't understand what agnosticism entailed.
Only when atheism is framed as a matter of 'knowing' or 'believing' does it have anything in common with agnosticism.
It seems we are in...agreement?
I often say that part of how I know that God doesn't exist is that the very idea is stupid to begin with. (I'm pretty sure I said this earlier in this thread, too.)
Good enough for me :smile: