• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

agnosticism confuses me

Darat said:
"Agnostic" - is a belief about the limitation of knowledge in regards to "god", in other words (courtesy of Encarta Dictionary- because I've got it up and running at the moment)

An agnostic is someone who like a theist has a faith; it is not fence sitting, it is not saying we don't have enough evidence yet to come to a decision it is taking a stance that we can never have the knowledge whether god exists or not.
Click to expand...
There it is!

That's the traditional meaning of "agnostic", which OED agrees with.

People holding that position are theists in disguise, because they have attributed a trait to god/s - that they cannot be known.

The trouble is that the meaning has moved on from there and I see very few people who stake that particular claim.
 
Tricky said:
First of all, describe every possible concept of a god, then show that each one does not exist.
Click to expand...
If this sentence means anything to you then you must already have a concept of the word "god". Otherwise what are you asking? You must have an idea of what things the concept includes and what things it doesn't.

You surely don't mean "disprove the existence of anything that a person might apply the label 'god' to." I'm not going to be an agnostic on the grounds that some psychiatric patient may decide to worship, say, a tree, the tree exists therefore an (alleged) god does. We have to be able say in advance what the proper useage of the word "god" is. This is not part of the question of god's existence but something we have to do before we can ask that question.

I know what I mean by god. And I know that such things don't exist (I'm not, BTW, saying that supernatural entities definitely don't exist - my concept of god is a little narrower than that. And I don't consider a deist creator to be a god).
 
Last edited:
bignickel said:
Hi, Sessbj, welcome to the forum.

Although it might 'appear' that 3 posters immediately jumped you, this is but an illusion; we don't 'know' that you got jumped. Or that these are really letters on a screen you're reading. In fact, this your computer could be randomly spitting out letters, and just by coincidence, they all form words which appear to be different people talking about 'evidence/no evidence' on an internet forum. More incredibly, if you look at the screen in exactly the right way, you can see an image of Penn Jillette eating a double cheeseburger.

Anyway, happy posting. :)
Click to expand...

Hi there bignickel. I'm not really sure what you mean by that. I am aware we can never truly "know" anything in regards to god, one can only make educated guesses based on probability, and that is why I do not have a belief in god. Are you saying that I should?
 
sessbj said:
...I am aware we can never truly "know" anything in regards to god, one can only make educated guesses based on probability, and that is why I do not have a belief in god.
Click to expand...

Why is that we can never know?

If there were a god, why couldn't he/she/they pop down/up/sideways and say hi to everyone?
 
The Atheist said:
Why is that we can never know?

If there were a god, why couldn't he/she/they pop down/up/sideways and say hi to everyone?
Click to expand...

It isn't that they can't, it is that they may choose not to, for reasons known only to them. If a god wanted to they could prove they exist but perhaps they don't want to.
 
The Atheist said:
Why is that we can never know?
Click to expand...

If you define god as an unmeasurable entity then by definition we can never have 100% certain knowledge in regards to god, we can only make guesses based of degrees of probability.

Are you saying we can have 100% certain knowledge in regards to god?

The Atheist said:
If there were a god, why couldn't he/she/they pop down/up/sideways and say hi to everyone?
Click to expand...

I guess if you defined god as an entity that could possibly do such a thing, then yes, at that point when god came down and said hi we would have certain, specific knowledge in regards god. Unfortunately this hasn't happened yet and until it does we are still in a realm of probability, not certainty.
 
Darat said:
An agnostic is someone who like a theist has a faith; it is not fence sitting, it is not saying we don't have enough evidence yet to come to a decision it is taking a stance that we can never have the knowledge whether god exists or not.
Click to expand...

That specific definition only describes the strong agnostic position, but its not that black and white. There are other variances in the stance you can take.

From wiki:
* Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of god(s) are unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.

* Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God(s) is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available.

* Apathetic agnosticism—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God(s), but since any God(s) that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.

* Non-practicing agnosticism—the view that there is no proof of either existence or nonexistence of God(s), and that it's meaningless to care.

* Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God(s) as a being is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence. (See scientific method)

* Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. This branch of agnosticism does not focus on a deity's existence.

* Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God(s), but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)

* Agnostic spiritualism—the view that there may or may not be a God(s), while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any established doctrine or dogma.

* Relative Agnosticism—This is similar to Agnostic spiritualism, but with the added view that if it was empirically proven that God(s) do or do not exist, it would not affect the beliefs of the Relative Agnostic.

* Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of god(s), and do not believe in god(s)
 
Reading that list I would say my belief falls somewhere between Non-practicing agnosticism and Ignosticism.
 
billydkid said:
This is what I find confusing - When you are agnostic does that mean you are agnostic about everything or is it simply that you are agnostic in regard to the Christian/Hebrew god, for example? Is the thinking like this - while Zeus and Poseidon (sp) and pink unicorns are ridiculous notions, I am open to the possibility that the Christian god is real.....? I always new I was sort of uncomfortable with the idea of being an agnostic, but I wasn't really sure why. I think this is why. Or is the position this - that anything might be true so I will remain open minded about every ridiculous claim....? How does one decide what one is agnostic about? Doesn't choosing to be agnostic about, say, Christianity automatically give that religion a standing other religions do not have? And if so, on what basis is this open mindedness about Christianity founded?

It seems to me, if you are going to be genuinely agnostic you have to agnostic in regard to any claim about God and the universe that anyone has ever made and I don't believe anyone who calls themselves agnostic really feels that way. There are many belief systems they dismiss out of hand as being more ridiculous to believe in than the one they claim to be agnostic about. Does this make any sense?
Click to expand...

Underspecified; pragmatics (i.e. context) would hopefully make it clear.

I happen to be weak-agnostic about almost all gods, the IPU, flying teapots, etc., since I take a rigorous logical stance. I do not dismiss any of them out of hand.

However, some make strong enough empirical claims (e.g. a visible corporeal large man who throws thunderbolts and sits in a building on top of Mt. Olympus) to be falsifiable. If so, then sure I'll be happy to falsify them.

You are right that if I were agnostic about Yahweh and not about (say) the IPU, that would be an intellectually dishonest double standard (aka 'special pleading'). Which is why I don't do it.

So, as Dawkins says, Yahweh in modern (unfalsifiable) conception has as much evidence for/against as the IPU. I'm OK with that, and I think he is absolutely wrong (fallacy, argument from ignorance / disbelief) to make the leap that neither exists - or even that they are "equiprobable", since the probability of each is completely unknown.
 
I'd have to say that what Seesbj posted pretty much shuts off any further possibility for confusion here. Conveniently, it also pretty much confirms what i said earlier :)
 
sessbj said:
I think you misunderstood me. The implications of god existing or not existing isn't important to me personally, in that I don't need to reference god to define my moral code, but of course I care about harm that is done in the world. I don't want to see anyone suffer and I try to help people whenever I can. I don't really see why I should have to have a belief or disbelief about god in order to do that though.
Click to expand...

Because if there really is a god, all this suffering maybe necessary.
 
Tricky said:
But I will still object to anyone who claims absolute certainty of anything, except perhaps logical and mathematical proofs. That is tantamount to saying "there is no evidence which could convince me that I am wrong". Is that the proper stance for an avowed skeptic?
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. I can state right now that I am 100% certain that god does not exist. If in the future some evidence comes to light that shows one does or "may" exist, then I will change my view. But that would be in the future and under said circumstances. Right now, I am absolutely certain that god does not exist.
 
qayak said:
I disagree with this. I can state right now that I am 100% certain that god does not exist. If in the future some evidence comes to light that shows one does or "may" exist, then I will change my view. But that would be in the future and under said circumstances. Right now, I am absolutely certain that god does not exist.
Click to expand...
Ah. Temporarily absolute. Gosh, it all makes sense now.
 
sessbj said:
If you define god as an unmeasurable entity then by definition we can never have 100% certain knowledge in regards to god, we can only make guesses based of degrees of probability.

Are you saying we can have 100% certain knowledge in regards to god?

I guess if you defined god as an entity that could possibly do such a thing, then yes, at that point when god came down and said hi we would have certain, specific knowledge in regards god. Unfortunately this hasn't happened yet and until it does we are still in a realm of probability, not certainty.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't give any definitions or descriptions to any god/s.

This is why I see your position as marginally theist - you're giving various definitions to god/s. I do no such thing. In the ridiculously unlikely event that I meet one, I'll define it at that stage. Christians give me various definitions of their god. They all seem just as childish as each other.
 
What is the term for an individual who does not know whether God exists?

Joe: The Blue Footed Booby: is that a real bird, or something people made up?

Bob: I don't know.

Joe: What about God, does he exist?

Bob: I don't know that either.

Is Bob an agnostic?
 
Scott Haley said:
What is the term for an individual who does not know whether God exists?

Joe: The Blue Footed Booby: is that a real bird, or something people made up?

Bob: I don't know.

Joe: What about God, does he exist?

Bob: I don't know that either.

Is Bob an agnostic?
Click to expand...
Of course. Gnostic means "having knowledge" Agnostic means "not having knowledge". If you say "I don't know", you are saying "I don't have knowledge".

But of course, I've already said that everybody is agnostic (admittedly by my definition of agnostic), but some either don't realize it or won't admit it.
 
sessbj said:
Hi there bignickel. I'm not really sure what you mean by that. I am aware we can never truly "know" anything in regards to god, one can only make educated guesses based on probability, and that is why I do not have a belief in god. Are you saying that I should?
Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusion. I was just typing up some kind of hyper-parody of this thread, while at the same time saying 'hi'. Welcome to the forum, and happy posting, were my only points here to you (with perhaps a comment about 'getting jumped' mixed in for good measure). :)

Anyways, in regards to your 'list o' agnostics': this is precisely why I talked about in my other post about why it's a good idea to talk about which definition of 'agnostic' is the most useful. If we just allow all of them out there, and rip on agnostics because of one definition, it's really not productive.

Regarding the 'fence-sitter' definition: if they don't know if they believe in god... then they don't believe in god/s. Therefore, they're atheists (or non-theist, as Shermer prefers). With atheist as "person who doesn't believe in god/s", why do we need to saddle agnostic with a definition which is a particular flavor of atheism? I just don't see how it's useful.

What is a more useful definition? Well, in regards to religion, the number one question is: "do you believe in god/s?" What's the second? I suggest: "what would it take for you to believe in god/s?" Since the definition of 'atheist' doesn't come anywhere near answering this type of question, then using 'agnostic' here would be a much more productive use, allowing us to discuss questions of 'evidence to believe'.

Using this definition of agnostic, we can say that the non-agnostic atheist does not believe in god/s, but can possibly be convinced in god/s' existance, given the right evidence. The agnostic atheist, OTOH, can never be convinced. Regarding the 'god pops up front of you' situation, the agnostic does NOT believe that this is existence of god; it's only evidence that he is seeing an image of a person claiming to be god in front of him. Why: because he knows that he is not QUALIFIED to determine that this is evidence of the supernatural. His guesses about what he's witnessing will be ones that involve the natural universe (ie hallucination from lack of sleep, going insane, practical joke.., possibly going all the way to aliens. But never the supernatural).

As for Scott Haley's story: sorry to disagree with fellow tapas enjoyer Tricky, but we don't have any information about Bob's agnosticism. Bob's most certainly an atheist, tho (since he does not believe in a god).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom