agnosticism confuses me

[billydkid]

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?

 

[Jimbo07]

I'd assume that like weak/strong atheism one could come up with definitions for various varieties of agnosticisim...

We all ready for another round of 'Battle of the Definitions?'

 

[plindboe]

The term "agnostic" has more neutral connotations among the general populace than "atheist" does. I think people label themselves after how they want to appear to others, but belief-wise, agnostics and atheists are like two peas in a pod arguing over semantics.

 

[volatile]

I'm an atheist, but I always assumed "agnostic" was something close to or even equivocal to deism - that is, an agnostic, like a deist, might say "I really can't prove there isn't a divine power, but then again, there might be. That said, any precise codification of that power strikes me as pretty untenable given my experience of the world".

In other words, the agnostic position rests on an infirm sense regarding the unprovability of a divine creative force paired with a firm sense that the description of that force in any dogmatic terms is absurd.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

[...] an agnostic, like a deist, might say "I really can't prove there isn't a divine power, but then again, there might be. That said, any precise codification of that power strikes me as pretty untenable given my experience of the world".

Although I've only done marginal research in the matter, I would consider myself a deist based on what I've read and I think a deist would instead say "with reason alone I believe there is a God but much more than that, I can't say." Disagreeing with the first part of your statement, but agreeing with the second for the most part. (The 'much more in that being things like perhaps an after life)

(I'm not looking to argue the deist belief system, but just saying a deist wouldn't say they can't prove there isn't a divine power, but more the opposite, and say they can)

 

[thaiboxerken]

Agnosticism is a security blanket of ignorance. It really has no philosophical or practical value. Most people use the term as an evasion to the question "do you believe in a god?"

 

[volatile]

Although I've only done marginal research in the matter, I would consider myself a deist based on what I've read and I think a deist would instead say "with reason alone I believe there is a God but much more than that, I can't say." Disagreeing with the first part of your statement, but agreeing with the second for the most part. (The 'much more in that being things like perhaps an after life)

(I'm not looking to argue the deist belief system, but just saying a deist wouldn't say they can't prove there isn't a divine power, but more the opposite, and say they can)

Actually, I think you're right. My equivocation was probably a bit strong...

It does seem to me that agnostics are more on the side of deism than atheism though.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Part of the problem is that atheists are supposedly saying "there is absolutely positively no god," whereas many of us would be perfectly happy to be convinced by evidence. Of course, first a definition of god would be handy.

~~ Paul

 

[IllegalArgument]

Actually, I think you're right. My equivocation was probably a bit strong...

It does seem to me that agnostics are more on the side of deism than atheism though.

I wouldn't say that, I'm agnostic, because it cannot be proven that the universe was or was not created intentionally. It is an unknowable question, so I must be agnostic because I cannot know.

It's an intellectally neutral position.

 

[volatile]

I wouldn't say that, I'm agnostic, because it cannot be proven that the universe was or was not created intentionally. It is an unknowable question, so I must be agnostic because I cannot know.

It's an intellectally neutral position.

But it's not a neutral question. As Dawkins (him again!) discusses at great length, agnosticism seems to assume that the two propositions - "There is a God" and "There isn't a God" are equally likely, when it seems that is far from being the case.

That's why I make the link with deism - agnosticism posits the likely existence of God further towards the "God exists" end of that spectrum than the evidence would seem to imply. You're right, of course, that we cannot prove there is or isn't a God, but we can certainly estimate the likelihood of those two positions - no atheist would claim that he could prove there was no God, but accepting that impossibility of proof wouldn't make him an agnostic.

 

[billydkid]

Part of the problem is that atheists are supposedly saying "there is absolutely positively no god," whereas many of us would be perfectly happy to be convinced by evidence. Of course, first a definition of god would be handy.

~~ Paul

I guess I think of atheism as the absence of a belief in a god more that the positive assertion there is no god. Although I can say without reservation that I believe that no version of God that I have encountered exists.

 

[billydkid]

Agnosticism is a security blanket of ignorance. It really has no philosophical or practical value. Most people use the term as an evasion to the question "do you believe in a god?"

Actually, Thai, I have always thought you were a bit too reluctant to fully express your opinions. I hope you'll rectify that.

 

[qayak]

Agnosticism is a security blanket of ignorance. It really has no philosophical or practical value. Most people use the term as an evasion to the question "do you believe in a god?"

I agree. If agnosticism was a valid stance for anyone, except those first examining the issue, they would also have to have the same stance on santa, the easter bunny, elves, ghosts, alien abduction, etc.

It is a dodge.

 

[Ginarley]

Agnosticism is a security blanket of ignorance. It really has no philosophical or practical value. Most people use the term as an evasion to the question "do you believe in a god?"

I agree - a lot of people (myself included until relatively recently) tend to fall back on an agnostic position because they don't want to offend people or be seen as arrogant.

 

[Ginarley]

Part of the problem is that atheists are supposedly saying "there is absolutely positively no god," whereas many of us would be perfectly happy to be convinced by evidence. Of course, first a definition of god would be handy.

~~ Paul

I actually don't think the question of "is there a god" has any meaning at all - both because of a lack of definition and because there is no reason to suppose there is in the first place.

 

[Tricky]

Theism and atheism are statements of belief.

Gnosticism and Agnosticism, based on the literal meaning of the word, are positions of knowledge.

With regard to the existence of some kind of God, I contend that all of us, theists, deists and atheists alike, do not have knowledge, therefore we are all agnostics.

Some of us admit it.

 

[qayak]

With regard to the existence of some kind of God, I contend that all of us, theists, deists and atheists alike, do not have knowledge, therefore we are all agnostics.

That's not true at all. We do have knowledge. We may not have 100% proof but we definitely have an overwhelming body of evidence.

 

[thaiboxerken]

With regard to the existence of some kind of God

What kind of god? Can you give examples? Agnosticism is stupid, it's like Tai Chi's claim that one cannot claim a fact unless they can survey all of time and space.

 

[Roboramma]

I'm with Tricky on this one. I consider myself an atheist, even a strong atheist, but I also consider myself agnostic.

I'll put it this way, regarding all gods that have ever been thought of, I'm about as sure that they don't exist as I am that my brother's legal name is Micheal. However, I'm not entirely certain about either.
Regarding all the other possible versions of god that have not yet been thought of, I have slightly less certainty, but still enough to say, "I find it very unlikely that they exist."

Considering that this type of certainty is all we can really have about anything, if someone said, "Does god exist?" I'd happily answer, "No."

 

[Ginarley]

Theism and atheism are statements of belief.

Gnosticism and Agnosticism, based on the literal meaning of the word, are positions of knowledge.

With regard to the existence of some kind of God, I contend that all of us, theists, deists and atheists alike, do not have knowledge, therefore we are all agnostics.

Some of us admit it.

There are two different questions for which we might be agnostic (wrt an arbitrary god of whatever religion inspires you):

1) "do we have a valid reason to ask if god exists?"
2) "do we know enough to say god exists?"

I am not agnostic about the first question - I am sufficiently certain the answer is no. I remain open to the evidence changing as we discover more about the world but right now based on my knowledge, IMHO the answer to this is no.

I am forced to be agnostic about the second question only because it really cannot be answered. However question two is obviously redundant if the answer to question one is "no".