Anyone care to define Agnosticism?

[James T]

Expect to have to justify yourself, but I am interested to see what people believe their agnosticism to actually mean and how consistently they apply this principle to their beliefs.

 

[Peris]

i'm an agnostic atheist.. I believe god does not affect us in any way and probably does not exist, but i'm not leaving out the possibility.

theres also agnostic theists who believe theres probably a god, but he does not affect us in any way.

thats the 2 agnostic categories i make but ofcourse you can't put people into categories like that, theres a fine gradient between them...

 

[Voegelin]

I agree with Eugene Rose:

. . . "critical" or "pure agnosticism" . . . is the simple statement of fact: we do not know whether there exists an absolute truth, or what its nature could be if it did exist; let us, then--this is the corollary--content ourselves with the empirical, relative truth we can know . . .

It is the definitive abandonment of truth, or rather the surrender of truth to power, whether that power be nation, race, class, comfort, or whatever other cause is able to absorb the energies men once devoted to the truth . . .

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html#3

I would add agnosticism itself as one of the "causes" which absorbs energy once devoted to truth. Agnostics as well as atheists proselytize constantly. Very rare to find a Christian forum without a large contingent of both.

 

[Alecto]

Agnostics dont beleve because they dont have proof but if they had proof, they would believe.

 

[James T]

Um, in response to the OP, anyone?

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Agnosticism can also mean either to have no knowledge of or be of the position that it is impossible for anyone to come to knowledge of a given thing.

 

[DrFate]

Worship of the God Agnos.

 

[gwenmead]

Expect to have to justify yourself, but I am interested to see what people believe their agnosticism to actually mean and how consistently they apply this principle to their beliefs.

I've mentioned before on this forum that my form of worship is pagan, but underneath it all is a strong undercurrent of agnosticism. Here is how I define it.

The old Greek word gnoti means "to know", in the sense of understanding something thoroughly, or knowing something intellectually. Add the prefix a-, which denoted a negative, and you have a verb meaning "to not know."

What agnosticism means to me, then, is that while I or anyone else on the planet may have faith in a particular deity, religion, or spiritual path, no one really knows for sure if they're right. The existence of a divine presence in the universe is a matter of faith. I don't at all discount or disparage faith; it seems to be something needed by humanity, and if it is something which provides comfort, stability, or anything good, I won't count it a bad thing at all.

But faith cannot be proven. It cannot be known, in the same way that you know there is earth beneath your feet, that there is a deity, or which religion has "got it right". I am well aware that people can be quite convicted of the truth of their faith; I do not disparage this either, because I see it as part and parcel of faith overall. But faith is not fact. I find claims to the contrary to be dishonest. (I have a much greater respect for someone who can say "I have a great faith and conviction in my religion" instead of "my religion is the truth." The first leaves room for questions and dialogue. The second does not.)

I worship as a pagan, because that is the most honest and genuine path for my spiritual expression. Beneath it all, however, I am always in mind that, y'know what? I could be wrong. Maybe there are gods, and they're mine. Maybe not though. Maybe the Christians have it right. Maybe the Hindus do. Maybe nobody does, and there isn't any god at all. Maybe the universe itself is an intelligent being on its own. Who knows?

After all, if we really did know for sure, what value would faith have?

Thanks for reading.

 

[James T]

Agnosticism can also mean either to have no knowledge of or be of the position that it is impossible for anyone to come to knowledge of a given thing.

Are you agnostic?

Do you appreciate how wide the chasm between your to have no knowledge and your it is impossible for anyone to come to knowledge. I have a suspicion you don't because otherwise you wouldn't have defined agnosticism as one or the other.

 

[James T]

I've mentioned before on this forum that my form of worship is pagan, but underneath it all is a strong undercurrent of agnosticism. Here is how I define it.

The old Greek word gnoti means "to know", in the sense of understanding something thoroughly, or knowing something intellectually. Add the prefix a-, which denoted a negative, and you have a verb meaning "to not know."

Your choice makes sense.

What agnosticism means to me, then, is that while I or anyone else on the planet may have faith in a particular deity, religion, or spiritual path, no one really knows for sure if they're right.

Essentially scepticism, which is OK excepting the fact that scepticism doesn't move you far forward in terms of knowing anything.

The existence of a divine presence in the universe is a matter of faith.

Faith as in belief without evidence, and yet it is.

I don't at all discount or disparage faith; it seems to be something needed by humanity, and if it is something which provides comfort, stability, or anything good, I won't count it a bad thing at all.

I dislike faith because it is often associated with beliefs that are put beyond question. And where people have beliefs they do not question they act accordingly. Sometimes their acts are acts which should not be taken if the good of humanity is your real objective.

But faith cannot be proven. It cannot be known, in the same way that you know there is earth beneath your feet, that there is a deity, or which religion has "got it right". I am well aware that people can be quite convicted of the truth of their faith; I do not disparage this either, because I see it as part and parcel of faith overall. But faith is not fact. I find claims to the contrary to be dishonest. (I have a much greater respect for someone who can say "I have a great faith and conviction in my religion" instead of "my religion is the truth." The first leaves room for questions and dialogue. The second does not.)

I do agree with you here.

I worship as a pagan, because that is the most honest and genuine path for my spiritual expression. Beneath it all, however, I am always in mind that, y'know what? I could be wrong. Maybe there are gods, and they're mine. Maybe not though. Maybe the Christians have it right. Maybe the Hindus do. Maybe nobody does, and there isn't any god at all. Maybe the universe itself is an intelligent being on its own. Who knows?

Ah, the sceptic again. I have some sympathy for the sceptical view, except ... it's just so unhelpful in giving a positive basis to move knowledge forward with, and it is a fact that our knowledge is increasing.

After all, if we really did know for sure, what value would faith have?

I have reached a point where I have personally given up the use of the word faith. I retain trust and belief and will defend these two words from abuse, but faith is lost.

Thanks for reading.

A pleasure.

 

[DrFate]

I've mentioned before on this forum that my form of worship is pagan, but underneath it all is a strong undercurrent of agnosticism. Here is how I define it.

The old Greek word gnoti means "to know", in the sense of understanding something thoroughly, or knowing something intellectually. Add the prefix a-, which denoted a negative, and you have a verb meaning "to not know."

What agnosticism means to me, then, is that while I or anyone else on the planet may have faith in a particular deity, religion, or spiritual path, no one really knows for sure if they're right. The existence of a divine presence in the universe is a matter of faith. I don't at all discount or disparage faith; it seems to be something needed by humanity, and if it is something which provides comfort, stability, or anything good, I won't count it a bad thing at all.

But faith cannot be proven. It cannot be known, in the same way that you know there is earth beneath your feet, that there is a deity, or which religion has "got it right". I am well aware that people can be quite convicted of the truth of their faith; I do not disparage this either, because I see it as part and parcel of faith overall. But faith is not fact. I find claims to the contrary to be dishonest. (I have a much greater respect for someone who can say "I have a great faith and conviction in my religion" instead of "my religion is the truth." The first leaves room for questions and dialogue. The second does not.)

I worship as a pagan, because that is the most honest and genuine path for my spiritual expression. Beneath it all, however, I am always in mind that, y'know what? I could be wrong. Maybe there are gods, and they're mine. Maybe not though. Maybe the Christians have it right. Maybe the Hindus do. Maybe nobody does, and there isn't any god at all. Maybe the universe itself is an intelligent being on its own. Who knows?

After all, if we really did know for sure, what value would faith have?

Thanks for reading.

Agnos rules!

 

[e=mv^2]

I would like to define it but I am not quite sure of the meaning just yet

 

[levi501]

Agnostic is anyone who's doubts there is a deity... however slight.
To varying degrees I believe most people in this world are agnostic whether they agree with the label or not. Ever heard of a priest re-examining his faith? There's an agnostic for ya.

 

[Roark]

i'm an agnostic atheist.. I believe god does not affect us in any way and probably does not exist, but i'm not leaving out the possibility.

theres also agnostic theists who believe theres probably a god, but he does not affect us in any way.

thats the 2 agnostic categories i make but ofcourse you can't put people into categories like that, theres a fine gradient between them...

Certainly, there are varieties of atheism that are not compatible with agnosticism. Positive atheism, in essence, is a denial of God's existence. This is distinct from agnosticism. I don't understand how one could positively insist on God's non-existence. I feel this is not rational.
This is saying, positively, all swans are white. One can be almost certain, and believe that all swans are in fact white, however, there still is a lack of confirmatory proof. Since every swan on this planet cannot be examined, it may be said that, although likely, it remains to be seen if, in fact all swans are white. I think this is an agnostic perspective. If one lacks belief in God, because there is no reason to believe in his existence, this is atheism.. However, is it not rational to believe that "all swans are white" cannot be proven (agnostic), while at the same time lacking a belief that a black swan exists (atheism)?

 

[LiberaMe]

Certainly, there are varieties of atheism that are not compatible with agnosticism. Positive atheism, in essence, is a denial of God's existence. This is distinct from agnosticism. I don't understand how one could positively insist on God's non-existence. I feel this is not rational.
This is saying, positively, all swans are white. One can be almost certain, and believe that all swans are in fact white, however, there still is a lack of confirmatory proof. Since every swan on this planet cannot be examined, it may be said that, although likely, it remains to be seen if, in fact all swans are white. I think this is an agnostic perspective. If one lacks belief in God, because there is no reason to believe in his existence, this is atheism.. However, is it not rational to believe that "all swans are white" cannot be proven (agnostic), while at the same time lacking a belief that a black swan exists (atheism)?

This is the idea that you cannot prove a negative (which I agree with fully). Another way of phrasing your example is to say "there are no non-white swans." As you say, this is a logical impossibility. You can never prove never (though that statement is itself a contradiction). However, I think the term "atheism" has the connotaion in most people's minds of being positive atheism. I believe much the same way you do, but I prefer the label agnostic non-theist. It's a subtle difference I know, but I feel like it mitigates the connotation of being positive of the lack of divinity.

 

[Kusanagi]

I used to be an agnostic. Though the more accurate description for my agnosticism would be weak agnostic which in short means that God is an unknown but is possible that God can be discovered.

 

[James T]

This is the idea that you cannot prove a negative (which I agree with fully).

This inane bit of rubbish gets trotted out pretty routinely.

Prove that gravity never repells.

 

[James T]

I've finally decided that the issue really relates to belief and two premises. Let's take Hume: -

A wise man believes in proportion to the evidence​

And the premises: -

• P1) God exists.
• P2) God does not exist.

Considering only the extreme limits of belief in proportion, i.e. assign no belief through to assigning complete belief, we have the following options.

1. no belief in P1, no belief in P2
2. belief in P1, no belief in P2
3. no belief in P1, belief in P2
4. belief in P1, belief in P2

Now 1) just has to be agnosticism, 2) theism, 3) atheism and 4) stupidism .