Define “Agnostic”

[3point14]

Gnostic Theist: I know a god exists.
Agnostic Theist: I do not know that a god exists, I believe a god exists.
Gnostic Atheist: I know that no god exists (variation: I know that I do not believe a god exists).
Agnostic Atheist: I do not believe a god exists, I do not claim to know that one does not exist.

In my understanding of the language "agnostic" is an adjective, not a noun. So you qualify some other feature with it, such as "agnostic weatherman" or "gnostic time-teller".

And again: "gnostic" or "agnostic" is derived from "cognoscere", which means it addresses knowledge claims ("I know X to be true") as opposed to claims of belief ("I believe X to be likely true" (based on whatever kind of evidence)).

So when asked whether or not one believes in a god, saying "I am an agnostic" is, besondes being bad English, not a substantial reply to the question asked, but rather a diversion, implying that this question should rather be discussed on a basis of knowledge rather than belief.

And it is, indeed, a copout in many cases.

I still really, really want to know what the criteria are for deciding if something is worth being agnostic about. For me, this is where, as an expression of belief, it falls down. The agnostic accepts that others may define, for them, fictional entities that cannot be dismissed as fictional entities because the authors of such entities say hey hold the fictional quality 'deity'


What's the fundamental difference, I would ask agnostics, between fictional things one can dismiss as fiction and fictional things one cannot?

 

[Thermal]

Gnostic Theist: I know a god exists.
Agnostic Theist: I do not know that a god exists, I believe a god exists.
Gnostic Atheist: I know that no god exists (variation: I know that I do not believe a god exists).
Agnostic Atheist: I do not believe a god exists, I do not claim to know that one does not exist.

In my understanding of the language "agnostic" is an adjective, not a noun. So you qualify some other feature with it, such as "agnostic weatherman" or "gnostic time-teller".

And again: "gnostic" or "agnostic" is derived from "cognoscere", which means it addresses knowledge claims ("I know X to be true") as opposed to claims of belief ("I believe X to be likely true" (based on whatever kind of evidence)).

So when asked whether or not one believes in a god, saying "I am an agnostic" is, besondes being bad English,....

First off, just the straight definition begs to differ on that point:

agnostic: 1) a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable;

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

...not a substantial reply to the question asked, but rather a diversion, implying that this question should rather be discussed on a basis of knowledge rather than belief.

And it is, indeed, a copout in many cases.

Yeah, that's pretty much the point. Evaluate knowledge first, then form the belief. An agnostic says you can't reach the 'form belief' stage without resolving the 'knowledge' stage first. For example, until I can get some kind of grip on what we mean by 'god', I default to agnosticism. The theists and atheists have a hell of a lot more faith than I have.

 

[Dave Rogers]

In my understanding of the language "agnostic" is an adjective, not a noun. So you qualify some other feature with it, such as "agnostic weatherman" or "gnostic time-teller".

In mine, it's either an adjective or a nominalised adjective^WP. Since the adjective "agnostic" is, for the most part, only applied to people, the term "an agnostic person" can simply be abridged to "an agnostic," in the same way that someone can be a conservative or a liberal.

Dave

 

[Tommok]

In mine, it's either an adjective or a nominalised adjective^WP. Since the adjective "agnostic" is, for the most part, only applied to people, the term "an agnostic person" can simply be abridged to "an agnostic," in the same way that someone can be a conservative or a liberal.

Ok, I concede that, apologies!

I do, however, think that it should be applied in proper context, i.e. with a qualifier, even though it's not required to be correct English. Saying someone is a person who "does not know" tells me relatively little about him or her.

 

[Fudbucker]

I still really, really want to know what the criteria are for deciding if something is worth being agnostic about. For me, this is where, as an expression of belief, it falls down. The agnostic accepts that others may define, for them, fictional entities that cannot be dismissed as fictional entities because the authors of such entities say hey hold the fictional quality 'deity'


What's the fundamental difference, I would ask agnostics, between fictional things one can dismiss as fiction and fictional things one cannot?

Plausibility. It's implausible there's a tea cup floating around Jupiter. The existence of some being who created the universe is not implausible. It would also explain a few things.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Define "define".

 

[3point14]

Plausibility. It's implausible there's a tea cup floating around Jupiter. The existence of some being who created the universe is not implausible.

Yes it is.

It would also explain a few things.

No it wouldn't.


Postulating the fantastic to explain the mundane is just mental.

 

[Minoosh]

"God exists? Y/N" doesn't have to be approached from 90 bazillion different angles to the point that nobody is actually saying anything so the "belief" side can keep winning.

I don't know what's wrong with "I don't know."

I've read at least this thread and some of the others that apparently gave rise to the argument over definitions. Maybe I'll find an argument in that morass, but to me an agnostic is someone who professes to not know if there's a God.

 

[ynot]

I don't know what's wrong with "I don't know."

I've read at least this thread and some of the others that apparently gave rise to the argument over definitions. Maybe I'll find an argument in that morass, but to me an agnostic is someone who professes to not know if there's a God.

More specifically can't know (not possible to know). Like other atheists, agnostic-atheists aren't interested in merely believing in gods.

I don't know what's wrong with "I know." (there's no gods) . . .

Knowledge on which I base my “I know gods don’t exist” claim . . .

Knowledge that after thousands of years of intensive and desperate searching there hasn’t been a single piece of credible evidence found that establishes gods do actually exist.

Knowledge that there is no known method by which gods even could or might exist.

Knowledge of scientific discoveries that negate the need to use god beliefs to fill gaps in knowledge and understanding.

Knowledge that god beliefs are created by the minds of humans.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't know what's wrong with "I don't know."

I've read at least this thread and some of the others that apparently gave rise to the argument over definitions. Maybe I'll find an argument in that morass, but to me an agnostic is someone who professes to not know if there's a God.

It's "wrong" in the sense that it's dishonest to claim "I don't know" in a situation when given the same data in another situation you'd be comfortable with a more definitive answer.

Nobody is "agnostic" about everything and I find the arguments for the need to be agnostic about God specifically to be severely lacking and all either special pleading (God's different because... reasons) or circular (God is special because we define him that way.)

 

[Fudbucker]

Yes it is.

No it's not.

No it wouldn't.

Sure it would.

Postulating the fantastic to explain the mundane is just mental.

I agree. Why is everyone obsessed with postulating the existence of mind-independent stuff AND tying themselves in knots trying to explain how consciousness arises from it?

 

[xjx388]

I’ve always thought of myself as agnostic. I don’t have any beliefs in any supernatural entity like a god but I also don’t dismiss the possibilities of such a being out of hand. If there is a god(s) then it’s obviously something that is entirely beyond our comprehension.

I’m just kind of meh about the whole god thing. I just like to live my life and appreciate my existence for exactly what it is.

If it’s raining after a long drought:

Theist: “Thank God, our prayers are answered! You see! God listens to his people!”

Atheist: “Oh please, it’s just the weather patterns finally lining up for us. There is no god!”

Me: “I don’t know about all that, I’m just gonna go sit on my porch with a glass of wine and enjoy this beautiful storm!”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dudalb]

I miss the old days when meaning of words was not something subjective and "debatable" and "relative", and you could just refer to a dictionary and go on with the rest of your day.

I second that.
An agnostic is somebody who thinks the existence or non existence of a supreme being can not be proved one way or the other.
Question answered.
And this thread had drifted from a discussion of the meaing of agnostic to another screaming match between atheists and agnostics.
Count me out.

 

[Thermal]

It's "wrong" in the sense that it's dishonest to claim "I don't know" in a situation when given the same data in another situation you'd be comfortable with a more definitive answer.

Nobody is "agnostic" about everything and I find the arguments for the need to be agnostic about God specifically to be severely lacking and all either special pleading (God's different because... reasons) or circular (God is special because we define him that way.)

If someone asks 'do you believe in love at first sight?', can 'I don't know' be a fair response?

 

[Thermal]

I second that.
An agnostic is somebody who thinks the existence or non existence of a supreme being can not be proved one way or the other.
Question answered.
And this thread had drifted from a discussion of the meaing of agnostic to another screaming match between atheists and agnostics.
Count me out.

Is this the usual thing, to not talk about this subject civilly? I think the athiest crew has lobbed stupid, dishonest, cowardly...I'm losing track of the insults. The agnostic advocates seem civil enough. Is this some kind of hot button issue?

 

[ynot]

You go immediately from this . . .

Is this the usual thing, to not talk about this subject civilly?

To this . . .

I think the athiest crew has lobbed stupid, dishonest, cowardly.

Is this what you call "civilly"?

Pot>kettle>black

 

[Thermal]

You go immediately from this . . .


To this . . .

Is this what you call "civilly"?

Pot>kettle>black

I think that is a dry statement of fact. Is it uncivil to call attention to it, you mean?

 

[dudalb]

Is this the usual thing, to not talk about this subject civilly? I think the athiest crew has lobbed stupid, dishonest, cowardly...I'm losing track of the insults. The agnostic advocates seem civil enough. Is this some kind of hot button issue?

Yeah, it is in skeptic circles.
And it is bizarre that all too often the more militant athiests behave exactly the way militant religious believers behave. They become a Bizarro version of the "religionists" they hate. That is a major reason I have become really disillusioned with a lot of the aspects of "The New Atheism".

 

[ynot]

If someone asks 'do you believe in love at first sight?', can 'I don't know' be a fair response?

"I don't know" doesn't answer the question as it's effectively saying "I can't answer the question because I don't know if I do or don't" (I don't know the answer). The default is "I don't believe" because you don't "do believe" until you actually do believe. The question doesn't ask "Do you know if you believe in love at first site?".

 

[ynot]

I think that is a dry statement of fact. Is it uncivil to call attention to it, you mean?

Not merely your imaginary god belief based biased (anti-atheist) opinion then?