agnosticism confuses me

[Jimbo07]

Historically on these boards, my point of view has tended (and continues to tend) around Tricky's POV (just in case someone's counting ).

One can't be absolutely certain on the evidence and still keep an open mind?

Wow.

Regardless of that sentence containing an overt contradiction...

that's a very un-scientific viewpoint.

 

[Ginarley]

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.

Which is exactly why it seems to me entirely pointless to ask the question about whether there is a god or not - that question has no meaning.

 

[Jimbo07]

It seems that this basically gets to an emotional issue. God's sort of the last big bogeyman. We all have a strong opinion on whether we want to affirm, deny, or yes, sit on the fence. It's especially fun here in a forum... but at work?

In any sort of applied sense, the question is almost entirely meaningless. In taking real experimental data on a physical system, the impact of God (and pixies, unicorns, etc.) does not come up. I don't mean that God doesn't exist. I don't mean that unicorns do exist. I mean... they don't come up!

Unless one is trying to decide whether to live religiously by scripture or not (in which God is, I suppose, expressed in everything the individual does), the question of God has no physical relevance. Acts of God belong in insurance, not in physics.

There are some (not all) atheists who have claimed, "God does not exist, and the science backs me up." Well... it doesn't. Anyone who imagines for a moment that atheism (especially in its strongest form) is the only possible conclusion at the end of theoretical physics is quite simply... wrong.

In fact, at the end of experimental physics (much less theoretical), we just don't know. We confidently stride forward looking for physical causality... because it works, not because it is somehow ultimate TRUTH^TM. Physical systems work time... after time... after time.

God is not a physical consideration. "God does not exist," is a statement of physical fact. It's a statement that can't (and is never in any paper) made. God is just not a concern of the rigorous study of physics.

It's only relevant here where we have fun debating it.

That's why I'm an agnostic. The only things I trust (have faith in, whatever) to be 'knowledge' are those things which can be observed independently, and perhaps those things 'defined' by man (such as letters, words, laws, etc.), which themselves only have transport in a physical universe. If you think God is in anyway relevant to the physical universe and can say that God does not exist (or worse, that God exists and manipulates all experiments directly ), then SHOW ME YOUR NUMBERS AND YOUR ERROR BARS.

I have NO KNOWLEDGE of God (or unicorns or fairies). Belief on the other hand...

...

btw, sorry for the caps, those are just the highlights of my post... oh! Also, I want to find out who has my sig!

 

[The Atheist]

btw, sorry for the caps, those are just the highlights of my post... oh! Also, I want to find out who has my sig!

I dunno who has your sig, but you've got Darth Rotor's. Give it back, I'm in that sig!

(my sig is definitely right)

 

[humhead440]

Agnostic......One word, many definitions. I find Bertrand Russell's definition closely matches my thoughts on the matter.

Are agnostics atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

I can't post links to the full texts because I'm a newbie
It also helps to know what the man who coined the word meant when he first used it. Luckily we know exactly what he meant:

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist or a pantheist, a materialist or an idealist, a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer. The one thing on which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain 'gnosis' — had more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure that I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

This was my situation when I had the good fortune to find a place among the members of that remarkable confraternity of antagonists, the Metaphysical Society. Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there; most of my colleagues were "-ists" of one sort or another; and I, the man without a rag of a belief to cover himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic.' It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the 'gnostic' of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.
From T.H. Huxley, Collected Essays

Terry

 

[Beth]

Humhead, Welcome to the forum.

Reading that reminds me of the first time I ever heard the word agnostic. I was a freshman in college and thought "wow, there's a word for how I feel". I've been an agnostic ever since.

 

[bignickel]

Agnostic......One word, many definitions. I find Bertrand Russell's definition closely matches my thoughts on the matter.
Are agnostics atheists? No.

First, for niceness: welcome to the forum.

Second, for frustration: I've made 2 posts on this thread about 'usefulness of definitions', and over and over again, it's back to 'I'll pick this definition.' Well, I can define a "chicken" one way and a "fox" another, conclude they're the same, and toss the fox in the chickencoop, but I'm going to be pretty unhappy about it later.

An atheist is not someone who takes the opposite position of a theist; he's someone who does NOT TAKE the position of a theist. To wit: anyone who does NOT believe in a god, is by default, an atheist. And an agnostic can ALSO not believe in god as well: suspending judgment, while not believing that god exists, makes him an agnostic atheist.

If someone doesn't like the baggage that comes with 'atheist', then try on Shermer's 'non-theist' (which I lean towards using; someone who doesn't "collect butterflies" is an "a-butterfly collector?")

 

[plindboe]

How odd to call the lack of a belief for a kind of 'gnosis'. Huxley and Russell both seem to be making a case against a strawman. "Agnosticism" has got to be one of the most pointless terms ever invented.

 

[Darth Rotor]

How odd to call the lack of a belief for a kind of 'gnosis'. Huxley and Russell both seem to be making a case against a strawman. "Agnosticism" has got to be one of the most pointless terms ever invented.

Perhaps, but its an admission of deficit of knowledge. In that regard, it is an honest statement of position.

In common usage, it can indicate, or did for my many years of said PoV and condition, that one does not give a crap about The Endless Argument. Other things can be more important for one to be concerned with. I found, for much of my adult life, the rantings and ravings of angry atheists and self important Christians equally off putting, and annoying.

"Believe what you want, now STFU and hit that seven iron shot."

Not everyone gives a crap about everything someone else gives a crap about. As soon as some self important windbag insists that I must give a crap about what he gives a crap about, he's well on the way to the doghouse.

Life's too short.

DR

 

[humhead440]

bignickel

First, for niceness. Thank you for the warm welcome.
Second for frustration. Definitions are useful for framing discussion. The intention of the person who created the word & a definition provided by one of the best known philosophers to hold the position is relevant to a discussion of the term.
Interesting to note that you chose to attack the first words of Russell's definition & ignore the last ones.

I'm certain that all the world's religions aren't true. I'm not certain there is no "god".
I'll say more later.... gotta go to work.

Terry

 

[fuelair]

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?

It's ok to be confused - all the best people get that way sometimes. Especially if struck in the face by a chocolate-cream pie before morning coffee.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Are agnostics atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial.

I do not say that it is possible that we can know either way; we can make a judgement to the best of our abilities but our abilities may be in error and limited. I believe that there being a God is the best fit for what I think and experience, but I may be wrong.

 

[Tricky]

I do not say that it is possible that we can know either way; we can make a judgement to the best of our abilities but our abilities may be in error and limited. I believe that there being a God is the best fit for what I think and experience, but I may be wrong.

See folks? Here is exhibit A of an "agnostic theist". He, unlike a few theists we know, admits that he doesn't know for sure, but still definitely a theist.

I wonder if we should make the following substitutions:
Gnostic = arrogant
Agnostic = honest

 

[plindboe]

For some reason many agnostics are fully aware what the prefix "a-" means in regards to "agnosticism" but seems to forget it as soon as they start defining "atheism".

 

[chriswl]

There are some (not all) atheists who have claimed, "God does not exist, and the science backs me up." Well... it doesn't. Anyone who imagines for a moment that atheism (especially in its strongest form) is the only possible conclusion at the end of theoretical physics is quite simply... wrong.

Science cannot on its own justify a belief that God doesn't exist, but it certainly provides strong circumstantial evidence. Not believing in God was difficult before the theory of evolution, much, much easier afterwards. To say that its not strictly a scientific question doesn't mean that science has no input. At the every least science can make one highly skeptical of God's existence.

In fact, at the end of experimental physics (much less theoretical), we just don't know. We confidently stride forward looking for physical causality... because it works, not because it is somehow ultimate TRUTH^TM. Physical systems work time... after time... after time.

Agreed.

God is not a physical consideration. "God does not exist," is a statement of physical fact.

I think there's a contradiction here. If God is "not a physical consideration" (it would be consistent with current science if God existed or if he didn't) then neither claiming that god does exist nor that he doesn't exist is a "statement of physical fact."

I think you are right to say that science cannot be used to prove hard atheism. But you seem to be trying to use it to prove agnosticism. You seem to be implying that denying God's existence is unscientific. Its not, only using science to deny God would be unscientific. One may claim that God doesn't exist for reasons that have nothing to do with science.

 

[plindboe]

Perhaps, but its an admission of deficit of knowledge. In that regard, it is an honest statement of position.

In common usage, it can indicate, or did for my many years of said PoV and condition, that one does not give a crap about The Endless Argument. Other things can be more important for one to be concerned with. I found, for much of my adult life, the rantings and ravings of angry atheists and self important Christians equally off putting, and annoying.

"Believe what you want, now STFU and hit that seven iron shot."

Not everyone gives a crap about everything someone else gives a crap about. As soon as some self important windbag insists that I must give a crap about what he gives a crap about, he's well on the way to the doghouse.

Life's too short.

DR

Well, you can be an atheist too without caring. I don't see why a non-believer necessarily should care more than a non-knower.

That said, I guess I can see the point of Huxley's term, now after a little reflection. It's a statement of humility, which the term atheism doesn't address.

 

[The Atheist]

It's a statement of humility, which the term atheism doesn't address.

Humility? What's that?

 

[wollery]

For some reason many agnostics are fully aware what the prefix "a-" means in regards to "agnosticism" but seems to forget it as soon as they start defining "atheism".

I'm fully aware of what the "a-" stands for in atheism, and while it's true that I don't believe in god, I also don't disbelieve in the vague possibility that a god of some sort might possibly exist, however unlikely that may be. I'm not a theist, but I'm also not an "a-"theist. To me it isn't a question of belief or faith. "God" is an utter irrelevance, and both belief & disbelief are illogical.

 

[treble_head]

I'm a diagnostic. I'm not sure about 2 gods.

 

[plindboe]

I'm fully aware of what the "a-" stands for in atheism, and while it's true that I don't believe in god, I also don't disbelieve in the vague possibility that a god of some sort might possibly exist, however unlikely that may be. I'm not a theist, but I'm also not an "a-"theist. To me it isn't a question of belief or faith. "God" is an utter irrelevance, and both belief & disbelief are illogical.

Most atheists will tell you that the "a" means "absence of", "without", "no", "lack of" etc, and that they refer to themselves as atheists because they don't believe in God/gods.

As I said in my first post in this thread: "agnostics and atheists are like two peas in a pod arguing over semantics."