Why agnosticism?

Darwin

Critical Thinker
D
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
288
What do you think about it,agnosticism?
Using a dictionary definition,an agnostic would state that "the existence of a God cannot be either accepted or denied".I can see how one could have a problem with this definition though,and there appears to be variations of it.
Biologist Thomas Huxley,as a famous example of an agnostic,gave us the idea of "not being able to know",while "not necessarily believing" (these are not really direct quotes).
Where philosopher Herbert Spencer felt that there will be things outside of human mind´s reach,Darwin (probable agnostic) thought that the whole issue goes beyond one´s intellect.
So,I wonder,why agnosticism? I think there are agnostics lurking around to offer their thoughts.
In a way it appears that agnosticism has logical edge in that it it appears true that the issue we are dealing with is often untestable unless predictions are made (on this ground,we can perhaps,more easily put to rest a God or two) and in that a solid one.But why should one assume this position,why not simply disbelieve? As for me,I think fairly highly of agnosticism,but I find no reason to entertain it myself,so far.
Responses of all kinds are appreciated.Thank you.
 
For me, I used to be an athiest (expressedly denied the existance of god). Now I'm not so sure.

In reality, agnosticism just fits in with my whole philosophy better. I'm trying not to believe in anything, because I feel that if I believe in something then I close my mind to other opions, and possibly correct ones. So in essence it comes down to a lack of belief either way. I don't believe god exists, I don't believe god doesn't exists, however I am willing to entertain either option at any given point of time.

That help?
 
Hegel said:
So in essence it comes down to a lack of belief either way. I don't believe god exists, I don't believe god doesn't exists, however I am willing to entertain either option at any given point of time.
Click to expand...


What he said.
 
I always thought agnosticism was a belief in some sort of abstract God that had nothing to do with what organized religions said about it. Well, I'm an idiot.
 
c4ts said:
I always thought agnosticism was a belief in some sort of abstract God that had nothing to do with what organized religions said about it. Well, I'm an idiot.
Click to expand...
That's what I think Deism is.

The first part, not the being an idiot part.

That's fundamentalism.
 
there is a bit of mixed definition of terms. Sometimes the set of definitions people use is something like:

Atheists: make the postive statement god does not exist

Agnostic: non-existance of god cannot be proven, but do not accept the existance of a god either without any evidence


These are close to the dictionary definition. Atheism as defined above is a positive statement that cannot be proven, and can be derided as just as much a statement of faith as stating a god exists. It is also sometimes refered to as Hard Atheism. Agnostic as defined above is also sometimes refered to as Soft Atheims.

The other pair of definitions sometimes used:

Atheism: does not believe in the existance of a god (combination of hard and soft atheism)

Agnostic: does not know if a god exists or not, possibly considers it an unanswerable question


So by the first set I would be an agnostic, by the second set I'm an atheist. Then we can bring in comparisons like the Loch Ness Monster. We would say it doesn't exist, which is similar to the Hard Atheist statement on god. Technically you can't completely prove such a creature never existed, but we have no problem makeing this statement. So a person can say that if we are justified in makeing the postive statement Nessie doesn't exist, then we are also justified in makeing the positive statement god does not exist.
 
i am an atheist, and i actively disbelieve in any god/gods due to the fact that there has never been any real evidence for the existance of a god/gods. however, this active disbelief does not mean that i wouldn't change my opinion if valid evidence for a god/gods was found. to me, agnosticism has always seemed silly. being an agnostic about god/gods is no less silly than being an agnostic about santa claus.

i once heard, and this might be pure anecdotal hogwash, that the term "agnosticism" was coined as a joke by some late 19th century wag making fun of the fact that the "inteligentsia" of the time had a need to label everything, whether it needed to be labeled or not. whether that story is correct or not, i have always thought it to be apt, as i don't really believe that agnosticism is a valid philosophical position. in modern times, agnosticim seems to be nothing more than a reaction to invalid negative connotations to atheism brought about by the more rabidly religious to discredit those they feel are their enemies.
 
Agnosticism as an incoherent position

I would like to comment on this issue from another angle, namely that of the internal coherence of the position of agnosticism.

I think it's very difficult to formulate a version of agnosticism that wouldn't contradict itself implicitly.

Here's the logical problem I have with agnosticism:
1. First of all, agnosticism is a position about the knowability of the existence of a theistic or deistic god, i.e. of a divine creator who has created the whole manifest universe and its laws, whether he's still involved in its historical development (theism) or not (deism).
1a. Agnosticism claims that it is apriori impossible to know if there's a creator or not.
2. The existence of a creator supposedly would make a lot of difference, even all the difference "in the world" ;), for the structure of manifest reality.
2a. A world created by a divinity would have to be fundamentally different from a uncreated world.
3. If an uncreated world differs from a created world, it should in principle be possible to know if the world is created or not.
4. Thus, agnosticism claims that it is apriori impossible to know if there is a creator, whereas the very concept of a creator implies that his existence can in principle be known.

You may think you can save agnosticism from this incoherence by redefining the concept of a creator. A creator would be redefined as a being that makes no difference for reality and that's why he can't be known. However, that definition of a creator is clearly absurd, as creating the world and its laws makes all the difference one can imagine. A real creator who is nothing but "a superfluous hypothesis" for our understanding of the world simply makes no sense.

Agnosticism is about a creator as commonly understood by atheism and theism.

Please note that we're talking here about agnosticism in the non-trivial sense (we can't know if there is a god or not), not in the trivial sense which translates as "I just don't know if there is a god".

Perhaps the least incoherent form of agnosticism is a form of complete anti-rationalist epistemic skepticism or irrationalism, which simply claims we cannot know anything. However, even that form would be incoherent, as we would supposedly be able to know its truth.

Any comments?

Titus

For readers who understand Dutch
 
Titus said:
2. The existence of a creator supposedly would make a lot of difference, even all the difference "in the world" , for the structure of manifest reality.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but how do we know what those differences are?

~~ Paul
 
In principle

Hi Paul,

Perhaps, but how do we know what those differences are?
Click to expand...
I have no exact recipe, but then again my argument is aimed against agnosticism, rather than an argument for atheism or theism.

In general, if the world is created by an intelligent creator, it should show in the structure of its laws, etc. Clever theoretical scientists should in principle be able to predict aspects of the way the world is structured that would follow from a theist or an atheist scenario. Again, if there's a creator he (just a grammatical gender ;)) should leave a mark in his creation.


Titus
 
Well, I guess the Creationists would agree with you, since they think they've found the evidence. I remain agnostic, or perhaps I should say, anagnostic. :D

~~ Paul
 
Logos

Well, I guess the Creationists would agree with you, since they think they've found the evidence.
Click to expand...
Yep, but so would the atheists. Note that my point is about the apriori, in principle knowability of the existence of a creator. If there is a creator, then he should be in principle knowable. Even if this in principle knowability would never lead to knowledge in practice. In other words, even if agnosticism in the trivial sense were true.

I remain agnostic, or perhaps I should say, anagnostic
Click to expand...
You should say so perhaps, but not write, as it certainly means something else :)

Unless you're just referring to your surname of course.

Titus
 
”Darwin” asked:
What do you think about it, agnosticism?
Click to expand...

Agnosticism = The existence of “God” is unknown, or there is not enough information to make a definite conclusion regarding the existence of “God”.

I would say that Agnosticism is a logically consistent, realistic, and skeptical position to hold.
 
I'm inclined to agree with Titus on this one. In fact, I think there is an even simpler, and more air-tight proof.

If we define agnosticism to be the belief that the existence of God is unknowable, we can make the following deductions:

1) If the existence of God truly is unknowable, then it necessarily follows that the knowability of the existence of God, is also unknowable. In other words, if it is impossible to know whether God exists or not, then it is also impossible to know whether it is possible to know whether God exists or not.

2) This means that a person who claims that the existence/non-existence of God is unknowable, is claiming to know something which is unknowable.

Of course, this only applies if you define agnosticism to be the claim that the existence of God is unknowable. If you define it to be lack of knowledge of God's existence, as most modern agnostics do, then this argument is not applicable.


Dr. Stupid
 
Titus said:
You should say so perhaps, but not write, as it certainly means something else.
Click to expand...
Well, let's see. Since agnosticism has been co-opted to refer to knowledge of god, I'll co-opt anagnosticism to refer to knowledge of ice cream, and I'm definitely on top of the ice cream situation.

Stimpy, here's what you said:

1. If it is impossible to know whether god exists

2. Then it is impossible to know whether it is possible to know

3. Therefore a person claiming to know whether god exists is claiming something unknowable

But statement 2 is only true if statement 1 is true, so statement 3 is paradoxical.

~~ Paul
 
Paul,

Stimpy, here's what you said:

1. If it is impossible to know whether god exists

2. Then it is impossible to know whether it is possible to know

3. Therefore a person claiming to know whether god exists is claiming something unknowable

But statement 2 is only true if statement 1 is true, so statement 3 is paradoxical.
Click to expand...

Actually, number 3 should read:

3. Therefore a person claiming to know that the existence of God is unknowable, is claiming to know something which is unknowable.


Dr. Stupid
 
I could be wrong about this but it is possible to know that something is unknowable. Take Hiesenberg's uncertianty principal. We can not know both the the velocity and position of a particle or system with any arbitraty degree of precision. Therefore we know that this is unknowable.

Also, a black hole, we will never know for sure what goes on in the singularity because no information can ever get out. Again
we know this info is unknowable.

Since all we ever will know exists in this universe, we can never know what exists (if anything) outside this universe, or before, or after. So I would suppose that agnostics believe that God exists outside this universe, so therefore unknowable.

You can know something about something that is unknowable because you can know what it is not. We can know that it is not knowable. So there:p
 
uruk said:
I could be wrong about this but it is possible to know that something is unknowable. Take Hiesenberg's uncertianty principal. We can not know both the the velocity and position of a particle or system with any arbitraty degree of precision. Therefore we know that this is unknowable.

Also, a black hole, we will never know for sure what goes on in the singularity because no information can ever get out. Again
we know this info is unknowable.
Click to expand...

those aren't very good examples, as they are simply situations where we are constrained by our technology and our current grasp of physics. they aren't truly unknowable.
 
Oops, you're right, Stimpson:

1. If it is impossible to know whether god exists

2. Then it is impossible to know whether it is possible to know

3. Therefore a person claiming to know that the existence of God is unknowable, is claiming to know something which is unknowable.

But statement 3 is only true if statement 2 is true, and statement 2's truth means that statement 1 is true. Statement 3 is still paradoxical, no?

Of course, implication tells us nothing about the truth of statement 2 when statement 1 is false, so perhaps 1 is false but 2 is true.

Uruk brings up an interesting point. Why does statement 1 imply statement 2?

~~ Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom