Is 'Agnostic' a useful concept anymore?

[FutileRhetoric]

Thomas Huxley defined this term over 200 years ago to mean one must not be convinced of anything that lacks sufficient evidence and therefore, one cannot believe in God or deny the existence of God because such claims cannot be proved with current evidence. Agnosticism was derrived as the antithesis to gnosticism and meant to be distinct from theism and atheism.

However, it is obvious that the definitions of theism and atheism have changed in 200 years. He defined theism as synonymous with Christianity and other Abrahamic religions and had his own label for other theists like pantheists and deists; 'freethinkers'. The definition of atheism was "denial of the possibility of God or gods". Both of these terms used to mean that one must have conviction of there belief in order to qualify as one; that a theist must believe with great conviction that God exists and make a claim on reality and similarly that an atheist must believe God absolutely does not exist.

This is obviously not true today because one does not have to possess a certain degree of conviction to believe or not believe in God. I am a science based atheist and know that God cannot be proved or disproved, and consequently, I do not make a claim on reality regarding Gods' existence. Some might like to label me an "agnostic-atheist", however I doubt the agnostic bit is particularly meaningful or useful. Definitions, afterall, being defined by people and being largely personal, should be explained in new discussions and I think rather than carelessly throwing out the term 'agnostic' as it is no longer a unique term describing a middle ground between beliefs. I could better explain what and why I believe by referring to the scientific method ad using examples.

Discuss.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Thomas Huxley defined this term over 200 years ago to mean one must not be convinced of anything that lacks sufficient evidence and therefore, one cannot believe in God or deny the existence of God because such claims cannot be proved with current evidence.

Perhaps the problem is that you start from a false dichotomy. Or more accurately, your dichotomy consists of two possible answers to two different philosophical questions.

The epistemological question, "Do you believe in God?" need not be answered with, "I deny the existence of God." That statement instead answers the ontological question, "Does God exist?"

Agnosticism was derrived as the antithesis to gnosticism and meant to be distinct from theism and atheism.

Yes, and I think Ingersoll and Russell both elucidated a meaningful niche for agnosticism better than did Huxley.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

*double

 

[FutileRhetoric]

Perhaps the problem is that you start from a false dichotomy. Or more accurately, your dichotomy consists of two possible answers to two different philosophical questions.

The epistemological question, "Do you believe in God?" need not be answered with, "I deny the existence of God." That statement instead answers the ontological question, "Does God exist?"

That is the distinction Huxley failed to realise, not myself.

 

[Asimov]

Thomas Huxley defined this term over 200 years ago to mean one must not be convinced of anything that lacks sufficient evidence and therefore, one cannot believe in God or deny the existence of God because such claims cannot be proved with current evidence. Agnosticism was derrived as the antithesis to gnosticism and meant to be distinct from theism and atheism.

You don't need evidence to deny the existence of God.

 

[TeddyKGB]

That is the distinction Huxley failed to realise, not myself.

Then I am not sure what your point is. Are you saying all atheists are already agnostics, and it is therefore redundant to use the latter term?

 

[FutileRhetoric]

You don't need evidence to deny the existence of God.

Are saying that the claim that there is no God is correct? Will yuo please elaborate?

Then I am not sure what your point is. Are you saying all atheists are already agnostics, and it is therefore redundant to use the latter term?

My point is that agnostic is no longer a useful term that describes both a belief and a lack of knowledge as Huxley defined it, but it now refers exclusively to the lack of knowledge we have of God. Since this is true, either a theist or atheist can be 'agnostic', however I find the term useless because as I said, one could better explain that lack of knowledge by citing scientific examples.

 

[Asimov]

Are saying that the claim that there is no God is correct? Will yuo please elaborate?

No, I'm saying that denying that p is true isn't saying that p is false, therefore one does not have to offer up evidence.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

No, I'm saying that denying that p is true isn't saying that p is false, therefore one does not have to offer up evidence.

True, I will rephrase my statement.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

No, I'm saying that denying that p is true isn't saying that p is false, therefore one does not have to offer up evidence.

True, but I mean that in the context that Huxley used it. He coined the term to mean neither belief or disbelief.

 

[Asimov]

True, but I mean that in the context that Huxley used it. He coined the term to mean neither belief or disbelief.

dis·be·lief· (dis′bə lēf′, dis′bə lēf&#8242
noun
refusal to believe; absence of belief



Disbelief is the absence or refusal to believe.




Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, from what I know of it.

 

[quatona]

My point is that agnostic is no longer a useful term that describes both a belief and a lack of knowledge as Huxley defined it, but it now refers exclusively to the lack of knowledge we have of God.

The meanings of words change all the time, more or less subtly. I´m not sure I understand why the fact that a word has a different meaning today makes it useless. I mean, we don´t use "atheist" in the meaning that Huxley used it anymore, either.

Since this is true, either a theist or atheist can be 'agnostic', however I find the term useless because as I said, one could better explain that lack of knowledge by citing scientific examples.

Sure, giving an exhaustive explanation is always more informative than a mere label.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

dis·be·lief· (dis′bə lēf′, dis′bə lēf&#8242
noun
refusal to believe; absence of belief



Disbelief is the absence or refusal to believe.




Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge, from what I know of it.

Absolutely correct; my apologies for not making that more clear in my first post. That is what it means today and it differs greatly from what most 'agnostics' think of it as they believe the definition remains unchanged.

The meanings of words change all the time, more or less subtly. I´m not sure I understand why the fact that a word has a different meaning today makes it useless. I mean, we don´t use "atheist" in the meaning that Huxley used it anymore, either.

Sure, giving an exhaustive explanation is always more informative than a mere label.

I'm not saying it's entirely defunct; only that there are better words and phrases to substitute for that label. I suppose what I mean by 'meaningless', I should instead say that it isn't unique or particularly meaningful.

 

[quatona]

I'm not saying it's entirely defunct; only that there are better words and phrases to substitute for that label. I suppose what I mean by 'meaningless', I should instead say that it isn't unique or particularly meaningful.

Unless they are synonyms they have a (at least slightly) different meaning - in which case "agnostic" is unique. Whilst in case they are synonyms and the other words are useful, "agnostic" is just as useful as they are.
Whether a word is meaning- and useful does not depend on the word itself, but on what exactly you want to express and on the context.
It´s possible that you have no use for this word. Yet, others may. In the given context it might express better than any other word what they want to say.
E.g. you said you would prefer to replace "agnostic" by a more scientific word. However, not everyone might want to link his agnosticism to scientific theories or findings. For those to express their position the term "agnostic" would be meaning- and useful, whilst your term would be downright incorrect.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

Unless they are synonyms they have a (at least slightly) different meaning - in which case "agnostic" is unique. Whilst in case they are synonyms and the other words are useful, "agnostic" is just as useful as they are.
Whether a word is meaning- and useful does not depend on the word itself, but on what exactly you want to express and on the context.
It´s possible that you have no use for this word. Yet, others may. In the given context it might express better than any other word what they want to say.
E.g. you said you would prefer to replace "agnostic" by a more scientific word. However, not everyone might want to link his agnosticism to scientific theories or findings. For those to express their position the term "agnostic" would be meaning- and useful, whilst your term would be downright incorrect.

You're right; it's about the context in which the word is used in. Since definitions are usually personal I do see why others would prefer to use that word because it means something more to them than any dictionary or other person defines it as.

 

[quatona]

You're right; it's about the context in which the word is used in. Since definitions are usually personal I do see why others would prefer to use that word because it means something more to them than any dictionary or other person defines it as.

This is undoubtedly true, but since this is a problem of and for communication I wouldn´t make it an argument for the use of a word. (IOW: I agree, but what you say here is not exactly what I meant):
Communication requires the will to use common definitions of words (even though this is never really possible, but it is what we need to strive for if intending to communicate meaningfully - that´s why the "Fundamentalist Redefinition Project" aka "1984 syndrome" is so destructive to meaningful communication).

I think that the term "agnostic" can - in certain situations of a discussion - be use- and meaningful in a very common and dictionary-based definition (and not only in a very customized definition of an individual).

 

[Nathan45]

You can define the terms to mean whatever you want, but its better if everyone agrees on them. Unfortunately, hardly anyone does.

Atheist

definition 1 ( strong atheism ): Someone who believes there is no God
definition 2 ( weak atheism ): someone who does not believe there is a God

Agnostic:

definition 1 ( indistinguishable from weak atheism ): someone who doesn't know whether God exists or not.
definition 2: someone who believes that whether God exists or not is unknowable.

The basic problem is that the terms mean different things to different people.

 

[Nathan45]

anyways, the basic fallacy of mis-communication is that you can change the meaning of someone else's words by redefining the terms they used.

No, it is up to the one who takes the position to define the terms, not the listener or even the dictionary.

If someone self identifies as "x" and then they say "x means I believe y", it doesn't matter what the dictionary says a "x" means, or what you think x means, you are talking to someone who asserts "y".