Definition of Agnosticism

[jan]

Believe me, I'm normally a humble person, but the following caused me some aggravation:

The mere lack or absence of belief in gods is referred to as weak atheism, or in some cases mistakenly identified as agnosticism (which is the position that knowledge of gods is not possible)

How can a commonly used definition be mistaken? Expect some polemic to follow.





Introduction: About Definitions


You can reject a definition because it is circular, or because it contains a contradiction. Besides those basic flaws, you may reject a definition because you think the suggested definition is not the most practical, or because it doesn't correspond to common usage.

On the other hand, it is partly a matter of taste what you think to be the most practical definition. And you may stick to an uncommon definition, because you think the common definition is so roundabout and deficient that it is more convenient to abandon the common usage.

Another reason to reject a definition would be the etymological-one-and-only-true-definition fallacy. For example, if you insist that "atheism" must be the complement of "theism", since "a-theists" means "those not being theists" in ancient Greek. If you believe such an argument, I suggest you also define an "electric device" as "a device that has something to do with amber". The etymology of a word may sometimes be helpful, but I see no reason to believe that there is some inherent wisdom in language that could or should force us to prefer some definitions and reject other on the basis of their etymology.

Otherwise, you are free to use any definition as it pleases you:

Originally posted by Lewis Carroll

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
[...]
Let us consider certain views that may logically be held, and thus settle which of them may conveniently be held; after which I shall hold myself free to declare which of them I intend to hold.

The Official JREF Definition of Atheism and Agnosticism


There are several definitions of the term "Agnosticism" in well respected dictionaries, but it's also possible to use the definition Bertrand Russell used for a start:

Originally posted by Bertrand Russell

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

To any mere mortal, it would be quite natural to conclude that if some fellow starts a sentence with "We do not know whether God exists or not, ...", that the sentence would end with something like "... therefore, I neither belief that God exists nor that he doesn't exist."

That seems to be what Russell expected, because he continues:

Originally posted by Bertrand Russell

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.

But, alas, Russell got it all wrong. If somebody starts with "We do not know whether God exists or not, ...", nothing can prevent him from continuing with "... but nevertheless, I firmly belief that God exists [doesn't exist]".

Therefor, the JREF wiki says:

Agnosticism is the position that knowledge of gods or the nature of gods is not possible.

It is important to keep in mind that agnosticism is not a position about what you believe, but is a statement about what you know or think you can know. People who insist that agnosticism is a statement of belief generally identify three basic positions:

• theism: the belief in gods
• atheism: the disbelief in gods
• agnosticism: not sure if gods exist

Although this is the commonly accepted interpretation of agnosticism, it is incorrect. Once it is understood that agnosticism is a statement of knowledge rather than belief, then several more precise positions can be identified:

• agnostic theism: belief in a god without claiming to know for sure that the god exists.
• gnostic theism: belief in a god while being certain that this god exists.
• agnostic atheism: disbelief (or absence of belief in) in gods without claiming to know for sure that none exist.
• gnostic atheism: disbelief (or absence of belief in) in gods while being certain that none (can or do) exist.

It seems at first glance that this proposed definition makes more distinctions (four instead of three) and is therefor more precise. But that's not true: the rejected distinction Theism/Atheism/Agnosticism tried to give three possible answers to one question; the proposed four cases try to give all possible answers to two unrelated questions, that is:

Does a god exist? Yes/No/Clueless

Is it possible to know whether or not a god exists? Yes/No/Clueless

In fact, to denote all possible outcomes, we don't need four, but nine different terms:

<table border="1" align="center" rules="all" cellpadding="5"><tr align="center"><td colspan="2" rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="3">God exists?</td></tr><tr align="center"><td>yes</td><td>no</td><td>clueless</td></tr><tr align="center"><td rowspan="3">Can we know?</td><td>yes</td><td>gnostic theism</td><td>gnostic strong atheism</td><td>gnostic weak atheism</td></tr><tr align="center"><td>no</td><td>strongly agnostic theism</td><td>strongly agnostic strong atheism</td><td>strongly agnostic weak atheism</td></tr><tr align="center"><td>clueless</td><td>weakly agnostic theism</td><td>weakly agnostic strong atheism</td><td>weakly agnostic weak atheism</td></tr></table>





Why I am a Heretic


This proposed definition is logically possible. You may use it. But for my taste, it has two serious flaws.

First, to denote the most basic and natural position, you have to use a rather roundabout and ugly monster like "weakly agnostic weak atheism". It seems more practical to use three words to denote the three answers to the question "does a god exist?", and three words to denote the three answers to the question "can we know?". If we want to specify the position somebody holds with regard to both question, we need only use two words for any of the nine positions in the matrix above.

Furthermore, in most circumstances we want to describe just the answer one gives to one of those questions. Instead of using the roundabout "weak atheism" and "strong atheism", we can use one word instead of two to describe any position.

The disadvantage is that it is no longer possible to denote to complement of theism with one simple word. If you feel you need to use the complement of theism frequently, you may invent a new word ("non-theist" or "bright" or whatever you like; I, for one, don't encounter the need to denote the complement of theism so frequently that I see the need for a short and concise term).

The second flaw is that almost nobody outside the tiny sect of literalist-challenged-atheists knows the definition of "weak" and "strong" atheism, while "agnosticism" and "atheism" are terms at least occasionally used (although I admit that your ordinary tract distributor might never have heard of both of them and thinks that there are either theists or antitheists ("antitheist" = somebody who believes God exists, but doesn't like him)). At least it would be strongly advisable to use "agnostic atheism" and "dogmatic atheism" instead, so others outside your tiny sect have at least a decent chance to understand what you are talking about.

Furthermore, if you absolutely, positively have to discriminate between several different epistemological positions that may go with any stance regarding to the existence of gods, the distinction between gnostic, weakly agnostic and strongly agnostic falls short to denote all the positions possible.

For example, I might believe that God exists and that I can prove his existence with a philosophical argument. That would make me a "metaphysical theist". Or I might believe that God exists and that miracles (that is, empirical evidence) proof his existence. That would make me a "supernatural theist".

I might hold the view that talking about gods is meaningless. That would make me a "logical positivist". Which makes seem a strongly gnostic strong atheist look pale by comparison. I might hold the view that I just don't know anything, but might stumble upon a valid proof any time now, it just hasn't happen yet. Which would make me a "pyrrhonic skeptic". If, on the other hand, I hold the view that I don't know, and can't know, for certain whether or not a god exists, but that I can know that one outcome is more likely than the other, I might still call me "skeptic", but no longer "pyrrhonic". And so on and so on.

Which means that the distinction between "gnostic", "weak agnostic" and "strong agnostic" is rather useless: there is seldom a real-world situation where you might use those concepts.

Which means that we are free to use the term "agnostic" for other purposes. Like, say, denoting the position a certain tiny sect calls "weak atheism".

We may return to some of the dictionary definitions of Agnosticism.

The New Century Dictionary, 1927

agnostic [Gr. agnostos, unknown, unknowable, (a priv. + gignosko, know.] One who holds that the ultimate cause (God) and the essential nature of things are unknown or unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Note that we encounter a lot of "or"s in this definition.

Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 1943

agnosticism [Gr. agnostos, unknowing, unknown, from a, priv. and gignosko, knowing.] In theology, the doctrine that God is unknown and unknowable; because God has not revealed himself to man; because finite mind cannot comprehend God; because Absolute God cannot come into intimacy nor make himself known to finite mind. In philosophy, the doctrine that First Cause and the essential nature of things are unknowable to man; that it is impossible to know the existence of the human soul and Ultimate Cause, or to prove or disprove it.

"By agnosticism, I understand a theory of things which abstains from either affirming or denying the existence of God; all it undertakes to affirm is, that , upon existing evidence, the being of God is unknown."
G.J. Romanes.

... and a lot of semicola in this one. Why? Because both dictionaries are not occupied with some idle logical game, but with the description of a historical phenomenon. There have been people who called themselves "agnostic", but as things are, they didn't agree on all aspects, so we have different versions, shades and variants of agnosticism, and both dictionaries try to hint at the variety of the phenomenon and capture all of the most important ones. And that's the reason why the quote is included in the Webster's entry: to let a specific agnostic explain what it is all about.

Of course you can, if you like, start some literalist nitpicking and say that both definitions (like the definition given by Russell) are reconcilable with an unsupported belief in a god, that is, saying: "I don't know whether a god exists or not, which makes me agnostic, but I belief a god exists, which makes me a theist, therefore, I am an agnostic theist".

But how many people have you heard declaring themselves to be "agnostic theists"? Maybe it's just me, but I never encountered any book about "Strong Agnosticism", but own several books about, say, "Logical Positivism". If you want to learn about what agnosticism is, you don't look up an abbreviated definition in a dictionary, but try to find out what actual agnostics have said. And that's why I think the (excellent and well written) article of Russell mentioned above is a more reliable source than about.atheism.com (and no, I just explained why this is not an appeal to authority) if you want to know what agnosticism is. Or what it should mean. Most conveniently.






Reformed Reference Chart


Therefore, if you want to talk with me (of course you don't have to, put me on ignore if you like), I recommend you the following concise reference chart:

<table border="1" align="center" rules="all" cellpadding="5"><tr align="center"><td colspan="2" rowspan="2"></td><td colspan="3">God exists?</td></tr><tr align="center"><td>yes</td><td>no</td><td>clueless</td></tr><tr align="center"><td rowspan="3">Can we know?</td><td>yes</td><td>theism</td><td>atheism</td><td>laziness</td></tr><tr align="center"><td>no</td><td>superstition</td><td>superstition</td><td>naturalism</td></tr><tr align="center"><td>clueless</td><td>superstition</td><td>superstition</td><td>agnosticism</td></tr></table>

If you should belong to the sect of literalist-challenged-atheists, this reference chart might also serve you, in combination with the table given earlier, as a kind of Rosetta Stone when dealing with the outside world and the rest of humankind.






Edit: changed "lazyness" to "laziness" (thanks Bri)

 

[Upchurch]

Wow. What a remarkably well argued post. I'd PM Diamond (who wrote most of the JREFwiki entry for agnosticism) to make sure he saw this, if I were you.

One small issue:

Originally posted by jan
But how many people have you heard declaring themselves to be "agnostic theists"?

This may be a gross oversimplification, but I would consider deists to be a sort of agnostic theist, even though I've never heard the term applied to them. Heck, I don't think I've ever actually heard the term used before. Still, doesn't mean it might not be applicable to someone.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by jan
But how many people have you heard declaring themselves to be "agnostic theists"?

One. There was a poster at the christianity.com Forums who claimed it. He was Episcopalian. He was also fairly well run out on a rail.

 

[Bri]

Excellent post.

I have a question about your final chart. I'm curious as to whether someone who believes that it is possible (at some point in the future) to know that God exists but that we currently don't know and therefore is "clueless" as to the existance of God would fall into the "laziness" category?

-Bri

 

[jan]

Wow. What a remarkably well argued post.

Thanks a lot.

I'd PM Diamond (who wrote most of the JREFwiki entry for agnosticism) to make sure he saw this, if I were you.

Just did that.

 

[jan]

One. There was a poster at the christianity.com Forums who claimed it. He was Episcopalian. He was also fairly well run out on a rail.

Not that I think one example could completely wreck my case, but out of curiosity: would you say that his views were in accordance with the definition of "agnostic theist" developed above?

 

[jan]

Excellent post.

Thank you too. Maybe I overreacted a bit, since I was under the impression that there might be some Evil Definition Corrupting Conspiracy going on. Maybe it isn't. Maybe time to relax a bit.

I have a question about your final chart. I'm curious as to whether someone who believes that it is possible (at some point in the future) to know that God exists but that we currently don't know and therefore is "clueless" as to the existence of God would fall into the "laziness" category?

I concede that my final chart misses possible differentiations. I claim that there are more (and more sophisticated) answers than just "yes/no/clueless" to the question "are we able to know whether or not a god exists?". Therefor, such a chart has to shoehorn some options.

So I am not completely happy with this chart. It might be argued that the position "naturalism" should be labeled "agnosticism(1)" instead, and the position "agnosticism" should be labeled "agnosticism(2)".

Furthermore, I just had a long dispute with elliotfc who claimed that he has no empirical evidence that would satisfy me that there is a god, but nevertheless believes that a god exists. I would hesitate to simply label his elaborate statements as "superstition".

More specifically about the position formerly known as "lazyness", and now called "laziness":

You can claim that it is possible to find out whether or not a god exists, but you just haven't done so, since you are lazy, and therefor you don't know whether or not a god exists. Such a stance I would call "laziness" (well, actually I would call it "lazyness", but that's just because I wasn't terribly good in English in school).

But it is also possible to claim that it is in principle possible to know whether or not a god exists, and if humankind exists long enough, it will inevitably know. It just happens that we don't know now, and can't know now, since our knowledge isn't advanced enough yet. That would occupy the same position in the matrix, but I wouldn't call it "laziness" (I wouldn't call it "gnostic weak atheism" either).

 

[Odin]

Can't God mean any combination of: God(s), goddess(es), omnipotent beings, advanced aliens, clouds of magic, entity/ies that live outside our universe but can alter it, e.t.c? Therefore its possible to hold the position that you can know if any of these exist but the sheer volume of possible God(s) makes it difficult to answer yes or no, which isn't really laziness.

 

[Diamond]

Upchurch is wrong. the definition of agnosticism was given by Yahweh, I just put the template in place.

Check the history of the page and you'll see I'm right.

==============================
Invitation

Jan,

Please e-mail jrefwiki@gmail.com giving your JREF moniker and real name. Then when you receive your password, login and change the definition to something better.

That's only fair, isn't it?

 

[Upchurch]

Upchurch is wrong. the definition of agnosticism was given by Yahweh, I just put the template in place.

Check the history of the page and you'll see I'm right.

My bad. I saw most of the history had Diamond entries, so I assumed you wrote most of it and Yahweh tweaked.

 

[Bri]

You can claim that it is possible to find out whether or not a god exists, but you just haven't done so, since you are lazy, and therefor you don't know whether or not a god exists. Such a stance I would call "laziness" (well, actually I would call it "lazyness", but that's just because I wasn't terribly good in English in school).

...

But it is also possible to claim that it is in principle possible to know whether or not a god exists, and if humankind exists long enough, it will inevitably know. It just happens that we don't know now, and can't know now, since our knowledge isn't advanced enough yet. That would occupy the same position in the matrix, but I wouldn't call it "laziness" (I wouldn't call it "gnostic weak atheism" either).

I completely agree that if you feel it is possible to find out whether or not God exists but haven't done so, laziness would be a fine term. However, the other possibility is much more likely, and for many different reasons, including the one you provided.

The one that immediately came to mind is that if God himself/herself were to make himself/herself known in some way, then we would certainly know for sure. Therefore if God exists then it would be possible to know it if and when God decided to allow us to know it. On the other hand, if God doesn't exist, then it would be impossible to know one way or the other. By that argument it would be possible to know (but might also be impossible to know).

So perhaps that is just an argument that we can't know whether or not we can know or not.

Where would that fit into the chart?

-Bri

 

[Diamond]

My bad. I saw most of the history had Diamond entries, so I assumed you wrote most of it and Yahweh tweaked.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Not that I think one example could completely wreck my case, but out of curiosity: would you say that his views were in accordance with the definition of "agnostic theist" developed above?

From my recollection, yes. He felt that God's existence could not be known, but he chose to believe, mostly because it worked for him, a position that seems to correlate to "strongly agnostic theism" in the first chart and that I've heard referred to as fideism.

 

[jan]

So perhaps that is just an argument that we can't know whether or not we can know or not.

Where would that fit into the chart?

I would say: a variation of the lower right position, that is, completely clueless/weakly agnostic weak atheism/agnosticism.

But of course a very specific variation, since it claims to know that if God doesn't exist, we are unable to know — a claim that has not to be shared by all the inhabitants of the lower right corner.

Which may be used as another example why such a chart is less useful than a simple name to denote a position as specific as possible (you may dub it "conditionally skeptical agnosticism" or "semi-weakly agnostic weak atheism", or "voluntaristic empiricism", or whatever you like, of course).

 

[Diamond]

From my recollection, yes. He felt that God's existence could not be known, but he chose to believe, mostly because it worked for him, a position that seems to correlate to "strongly agnostic theism" in the first chart and that I've heard referred to as fideism.

Would some care to define "fideism"?

 

[jan]

Upchurch is wrong. the definition of agnosticism was given by Yahweh, I just put the template in place.

Thanks for the hint. I just pm'ed Yahweh. Let's see what subterfuge he has...

Please e-mail jrefwiki@gmail.com giving your JREF moniker and real name.

I just did that. It occurred to me earlier that I might apply and then simply change the definition. I hesitated to do this: I was under the impression that the Wiki definition is the majority view here, and that it would be impossible to reconcile both definitions. But I now think that both may be wrong: after all, my preferred definition is already mentioned in the Wiki, all that has to be changed (from my point of view) is the ex-cathedra style with which this definition is condemned and replaced with a competing definition.

The competing definition must be mentioned anyway, since it seems to have some currency on atheist web sites, and a Wiki not mentioning it would be misleading and incomplete.

 

[jan]

Would some care to define "fideism"?

Elementary:

fideism
1. strongly agnostic theism
2. the worldview of some guy Marquis de Carabas met on a discussion board.



It should be noted though that an occasionally encountered understanding of "fideism" seems to be (at least so I am told) a certain doctrine that deals with the ways how someone is "saved", specifically, by faith alone (as opposed to, say, good deeds).

From wikipedia:

In Christian theology, fideism is any of a number of positions.

Now that's telling you, isn't it?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Would some care to define "fideism"?

Martin Gardner. That's where I'd heard it before...

Fideism refers to believing something on the basis of faith, or emotional reasons rather than intellectual reasons. As a fideist I don’t think there are any arguments that prove the existence of God or the immortality of the soul. . . If you have strong emotional reasons for metaphysical belief and it’s not sharply contradicted by science or logical reasoning, you have a right to make a leap of faith if it provides sufficient satisfaction.

...though its use predates him, and is actually a Catholic concept.

 

[Bri]

I would say: a variation of the lower right position, that is, completely clueless/weakly agnostic weak atheism/agnosticism.

Wait a minute...

I think maybe that the "clueless" option under "Is it possible to know whether or not a god exists?" might be meaningless.

You either believe that we can know or you believe that we cannot know. Agnosticism isn't an "I don't know if there is a god" but rather a "I can't say [for sure] if there is a god because it is unknowable" right? Doesn't the common definition of agnostic simply mean that we cannot know?

So, there is no name for a person who claims to not know whether it is possible to know whether there is a god (THIS is the person who should perhaps be deemed "lazy").

Therefore the only question becomes whether or not the person who believes that we CANNOT possibly know also believes in god, believes in no god, or doesn't know if a god exists or not.

It seems like maybe there are only 6 choices.

-Bri

 

[Diamond]

Elementary:

fideism
1. strongly agnostic theism
2. the worldview of some guy Marquis de Carabas met on a discussion board.



It should be noted though that an occasionally encountered understanding of "fideism" seems to be (at least so I am told) a certain doctrine that deals with the ways how someone is "saved", specifically, by faith alone (as opposed to, say, good deeds).

From wikipedia:



Now that's telling you, isn't it?

Not here you fool, in the wiki!